Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Standing Committee B

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Clause 30 - Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 259, in clause 30, page 32, line 10, after ‘firearm’, insert ‘in Great Britain’.—[Mr. Djanogly.]

Eric Forth: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 260, in clause 30, page 32, line 12, after ‘Britain’, insert
‘for the purposes of sale or distribution’.
No. 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
No. 262, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after ‘regulations’, insert
‘, following proper consultation and consideration with a working group consisting of a wide spread of expert practitioners,’.
 No. 263, in clause 30, page 32, line 15, after ‘(1)’, insert
‘with the burden of proving that a person does not fall within one of these exemptions lying with the prosecution’.
No. 271, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9A)The Secretary of State shall provide for payment of compensation in respect of loss suffered or costs incurred in consequence of the exercise of power conferred by or under this section.’.

Jonathan Djanogly: Mr. Simon Bromley, an elected member of the management council of the Military Vehicle Trust wrote to me to protect the interests of more than 5,000 members who stand to be affected by the Bill, as do their millions of pounds of investments.
The conservative Home Office regulatory impact assessment estimate of a £300 million valuation and associated significant administration costs and compliance costs is based on an estimate that imitation guns are worth £15 each. That is simply not an accurate estimate, but it shows just how large the figure might realistically be for compensating those whose pensions, businesses and indeed livelihoods are dependent on imitation firearms.
We must remain aware of the additional cost to the police and prosecution authorities after the enactment of the Bill, as well as the significant effect on business sales. Banning sales could mean a huge fall in the investment value of imitation guns, and compensation should be paid.

Hazel Blears: Clause 30 seeks to impose a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms. We have already discussed the fact that misuse of realistic imitation weapons has increased to an unacceptable level.
Amendment No. 259 seeks to restrict clause 30 to sales in Great Britain, but that precise effect is already achieved by clause 45(5), which covers territorial extent, so the amendment is redundant. The Bill already allows sales abroad, and those sales could include a transaction between a seller in Great Britain and a buyer abroad if it were arranged in such a way that the sale took place outside Great Britain—for example, by exporting the imitation firearm before the contract is concluded. I am sure that provision can be made so that the title and the goods do not actually pass until the sale is concluded outside Great Britain.
I suspect that the amendment has been prompted by concern that some owners of imitation weapons will suffer a loss in the value of those weapons when there ceases to be a market in this country, but I can provide reassurance in several respects. We will allow a suitable period before the legislation comes into force to allow people to dispose of any current stock, and we propose in later amendments that deactivated firearms are not covered by the new offence, partly in recognition of their value and historical importance. As I said, given that some existing owners, particularly collectors, might want to dispose of their guns in due course, we think it reasonable that they should be allowed to sell them abroad.
I have already explained that the principal reason for clause 30 is to cap off the future supply of realistic imitation firearms, which are all too often used to scare and threaten people and to help to commit serious crimes. We want to stop people selling them, except for certain limited purposes, and to stop people importing them.
We would leave the door wide open to anyone who wanted to import these guns for personal and sometimes criminal use if we accepted amendment No. 260, which would limit import restrictions to apply only to persons bringing in, or causing to be brought in, realistic imitations only for sale or distribution. Although we would reject that amendment, we would not oppose an amendment that exempted theatrical performances, museums and re-enactment groups from the provisions in clause 30. If necessary, we can also provide for further exemptions through the regulation-making power in subsection (2).
When we advanced our proposals for banning realistic imitation firearms, we readily acknowledged that there would need to be a range of exemptions and exceptions, for which we have provided. We have tabled amendments that make specific provisions to deal with some of the complex issues, but it is important to keep the regulation-making power because we might need flexibility in future if other issues are brought to our attention. The usual fear is that the Government will overuse such a power, so it is ironic that amendment No. 55 seeks to make its use  compulsory rather than discretionary. I appreciate that the amendment was probably tabled to ensure that re-enactment societies and others were recognised, but I hope that hon. Members are reassured by the Government amendments. We should not insist on regulations regardless of whether they are needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. I ask Opposition Members not to press amendment No. 262 either, not because we are reluctant to consult but because it would be generally unhelpful and inflexible to include it in regulations.
The membership and terms of reference of the firearms consultative committee were raised. Amendment No. 262 talks of a wide range of “expert practitioners”. It is difficult to say how wide a range and what fields of expertise would be involved. The Home Office already has dialogue with the main shooting organisations, the police and other interest groups when particular issues arise. We are reconsidering whether a two-tier firearms advisory committee could be constituted once we have determined how to deal with the review of firearms controls.
I assure the Committee that I have listened closely to representations in favour of making regulations under clause 30(2). I remind the Committee that such regulations would be subject to annulment by either House should Members be unhappy with our proposals.
We have no wish to cast the ban on realistic imitation firearms so wide that it bears down disproportionately on legitimate users. There is a balance to be struck.
Amendment No. 263 would require the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offence did not fall within one of the exemptions. I hope to assure hon. Members that the general criminal law has sufficient provisions to protect people in such circumstances without the need for the amendment.
In bringing criminal prosecutions, the prosecution clearly bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements in an offence necessary to establish guilt. If a defendant invokes a defence or seeks to rely on an exception, he will, depending on the legislation, bear either an evidential burden or a legal burden. The evidential burden is the lighter, as the defendant merely has to raise sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for his defence. The legal burdens mean that he has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, one of the facts that goes to make up the defence. If a legal burden is imposed, it has to be reasonable, or it will contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
That trot through the criminal law shows that defendants already have ample protection; they can never be unreasonably put to proof of a defence or an exemption, so I see no need for amendment No. 263. The normal criminal law ensures that not too heavy a burden will be placed on defendants when they seek to take advantage of one of the exceptions. The amendment would go even further, requiring the prosecution positively to prove that none of the  exemptions applied, even if none could have applied in the first place. That would be far too onerous a burden on the prosecution, and it would be outwith normal practice in the criminal law. If we open the door too wide, we will totally negate the principal purpose of the Bill, and requiring the prosecution to do that would make it much more difficult to police the legislation.
As for compensation, it is the duty of any Government to take action to preserve public safety when a problem arises. That is why we are trying to bear down on the misuse of imitation firearms. Our proposals for banning the future manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms are tough; we want to cut the problem at source. It is a legitimate objective. I believe that it can be justified if a fair balance can be struck between the interests of owners and the wider public interest. The Bill will achieve the right balance.
Concerns have been expressed about the value of rare deactivated firearms; we are exempting them under clause 31. We are also meeting concerns about antique loading presses and antique realistic imitation firearms. Existing owners will be able to retain their property; there is no question of their being deprived of it by the state. Those dealers who currently trade in realistic imitations will be able to sell their stocks abroad before the ban is implemented. However, there is no question of compensation for loss of business or of good will; that was clearly established at the time of the handgun ban in 1997. We are looking at control of use rather than deprivation of property. I therefore invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly: I was interested to hear that transactions abroad will be legal. In some ways, I am happy that owners of realistic imitation handguns will have a sales outlet. However, it confirms my fear that owners will be forced to sell overseas, so we shall export to our European neighbours the problem that the Minister says we have. I am not sure how neighbourly that is, or to what extent she has discussed it with her counterparts in other European countries. I asked her before, but she did not care to discuss the matter. She might wish to do so now.
In relation to exemptions and exceptions, I hear what the Minister says. We shall come to those in the next series of amendments, so I shall not go into detail now. The Minister somewhat cold-shouldered my point that the Government need to consult more widely. She said that she will look at some kind of two-tier consultation proposal, and I am not sure that she explained what those tiers are, but if she can send a note to the Committee, we will be grateful. However, I again make the point that changes should happen now. She should have a consultation committee with which to consult when she puts the changes in place, and not in “due course”.
The Minister’s statement about prosecutors needing to make their case was welcome. We will consider what she called a trot through the relevant law. She will appreciate that I cannot get to grips with it on the spot, but we shall consider it in detail and will return to the matter as the Bill progresses. Again, on compensation, we need to revisit the issue as the implications of the  clause become clearer. As I have said before, the Government filed their amendments only last week so we have not yet been able to consult with anybody who is going to be affected or to determine to what extent the amendments will alleviate the need for compensation. I shall not press the amendments to a vote, but we reserve our right to review the position in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 13 October be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out ‘7.00p.m.’ and inserting ‘10.00p.m.’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 301, in clause 30, page 32, line 12, at end insert—
‘()Subsection (1) has effect subject to the defences in section (Specific defences applying to the offence under s. 30).’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 264, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9A)In relation to subsections (2), (3) and (8), the following should be included in the exceptions and exemptions from what constitutes a realistic imitation firearm—
(a)deactivated firearms,
(b)deactivated weapons manufactured before 1983,
(c)deactivated weapons of .50” calibre and over,
(d)large machine guns, armoured vehicles and field guns and military equipment where the deactivated weaponry is intrinsic to the equipment,
(e)realistic imitation firearms used in security dog training and security guard training,
(f)realistic imitation firearms used in hunt dog training,
(g)realistic and deactivated firearms used by educators, colleges and schools,
(h)reproduction components for weapons of .50” calibre and over,
(i)starting pistols,
(j)weapons intended for use in “Airsoft” with a muzzle energy of less that 4 joules including BB guns, air guns and paint balls,
(k)realistic imitation firearms for use in theatre, cinema, museums, castles and historic houses, television and sporting events,
(l)parts of weapons required in relation to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k),
(m)specialist suppliers and armourers relating to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k).’.
Amendment No. 269, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9A)Nothing in this section shall apply to an antique firearm which is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or ornament.’.
Amendment No. 270, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9A)Nothing in this section shall apply to a firearm of antique appearance that fires black powder.’.
Government new clause 20—Specific defences applying to the offence under section 30.

Hazel Blears: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary recognised that a legitimate case could be made for exempting certain uses from our ban on the future manufacture, import and sale of realistic  imitation firearms. He was very cautious in saying what those might be and he made it clear that activities should not be allowed if there were a danger that they would subvert the purpose of the legislation. Nevertheless, he undertook to listen carefully to representations, and that is what we have been doing in the past few months.
We have made provision in new clause 20 for specific defences to be available to persons charged with an offence under clause 31 of manufacturing, modifying, selling or importing a realistic imitation firearm. Those defences will be available if the realistic imitation was made available for the purposes of a museum or gallery, for TV, film or theatrical productions or for historical re-enactments. We need to be careful in the case of re-enactments that the defence will not be available to people who spuriously claim to be re-enactors. I know that re-enacting is widespread and conducted by a range of extremely respectable and responsible persons, who enact everything from the wars of the roses to many other events. I have been enlightened by the correspondence that I have received in the past few months about the extent of the activity and the pleasure that people gain from it. However, I am concerned lest people falsely claim to be re-enactors, and that danger is best addressed by a regulation-making power to specify or describe the groups of people who might be involved in such activity.
We are also providing for an exemption for deactivated firearms and for certain antique imitations as well as for imitations of antique firearms made before 1870. I am informed by my officials that that is the correct cut-off point between what is considered a modern firearm and what is considered an antique firearm. I hope that, taken together, the amendments address many hon. Members’ concerns.

Mark Prisk: I am perusing proposed new clause 20, and confess that I understand the Government’s problem. How does one define a historical re-enactment? The Government attempt defines it as
“any presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event”.
What exactly will that exclude?

Hazel Blears: I am tempted to say any event that is not a presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event, which is the logical answer.

Mark Prisk: Can the Minister be more specific?

Hazel Blears: No; I have given him a fairly good form of words. We have also said that we want a regulation-making power to specify the various groups or descriptions of persons who could be involved, because we want to ensure that the measure covers genuine historical re-enactors, and not people who spuriously claim to have realistic imitations because they are personally re-enacting something that happened on 4 December 1932, but who are not  involved in a proper historical re-enactment. We will have to put our thinking caps on and do some work with the regulations to get that as tight as we can.

John Thurso: May I ask the Minister for her advice on a specific scenario? If someone were to give a lecture to a group of children on the activities of the home guard, dressed in the uniform with a Lee Enfield .303, which was the home guard’s weapon of choice when they stopped using shovels, would that be within the definition of a historical re-enactment?

Stephen Pound: Don’t panic!

Hazel Blears: I am tempted to say they don’t like it up them. That was one of my favourite television programmes.
I do not want to pre-empt what might be in the regulations, and it would be wrong of the hon. Gentleman to lead me into that territory. We will draft the regulations to try to accommodate legitimate activities. I know how much schoolchildren appreciate the opportunity to learn about historical events in a real way. It is important that we accommodate such events in the regulations, and we will try to do so. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with us. I am conscious of his point; old people going into schools and reliving their memories is one of the best ways to make history come alive and really mean something to young children.
Component parts are not covered by the Bill. Neither are reproduction components for existing weapons, which are covered by firearms legislation if they are pressure-bearing parts that can be used in real guns. So people will be able to get components for realistic imitations, but not if they can be used to turn those imitation guns into real weapons. We do not accept that anything with a muzzle energy of less than 4 J should be exempt. We have discussed that. It is widely accepted that 1 J is the threshold above which something becomes potentially lethal and is therefore a firearm by definition. I do accept, however, that there is an issue in relation to airsoft, which we will consider further. I am conscious not only of the weight of representations that I have received, but that many people are involved in airsoft activity, so I want some more time to think about that issue. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to have realistic imitations for dog training or starting races.
I am not sure whether amendments Nos. 269 and 270 seek to exempt antique firearms, or imitations of antique firearms. If the former, it is clear that something that is a firearm cannot be regarded as an imitation, so it cannot be covered anyway; if the latter, our amendments will help.
In the light of the amendments that we have introduced and the availability of the regulation-making power in clause 30 should difficulties arise, I invite hon. Members to withdraw their amendments. I recognise that other issues may benefit from further examination and I will certainly listen closely to what hon. Members have to say and consider the issues again before Report.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister please explain why the defences incorporated by Government amendment No. 301 were deemed preferable to the outright exemption of many legitimate bodies from the scope of the clause? Why should law-abiding citizens be criminalised in the first place? New clause 20, although it moves some way to appeasing interested law-abiding citizens, is still just a defence to a criminal offence.
There are still grave concerns and they are not only about the extent of the clause. For instance, in subsection (3) of new clause 20, the suspected person will have a defence available only if sufficient evidence is adduced and the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The basic question is what sufficient evidence will be. Those are woolly concepts and will not fully alleviate the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of people and businesses that stand to be affected by the clause.
Many associations that represent those who participate in leisure activities involving imitation weapons have strongly argued that the Bill will put their sports and pastimes in jeopardy. We believe that their protection should be asserted not just by means of a defence but by exempting them from the ambit of the clause altogether.
First, numerous small and medium-sized independent businesses are involved in the restoration and sale of deactivated weapons to private collectors, museums and historical re-enactment groups as well as hire to television and film companies. One company, Sherwood Armoury Ltd. of Kent wrote that its business, which deals solely in historic weaponry, would be severely affected. Furthermore, the proprietors have considered the large stocks of weapons owned by Sherwood to be their pension and savings, and now face a uncertain future should those historic weapons become unsaleable.
When the Government talk about removing antiques from the ambit of the clause, can the Minister confirm how old the weapons should be? She mentioned things that looked like antiques, but would the relevant date for antiques still be 1870? Would they have to be 100 years old or date from the second world war? That seems to be unclear, but it is of vital importance when it comes to the millions of weapons involved.
Another company, Battle Orders Ltd. of East Sussex, which sells replica weapons to historical re-enactment groups and is the UK’s leading supplier of weapons to the film industry, wrote to express its fears. Despite the size of the business and the potentially devastating consequences of the legislation, Battle Orders had not been consulted and did not know of any company that had. It seems absurd that such long-established and reputable dealers stand to be put out of business without having been properly consulted.
The toy gun industry is even larger and just as worried. The British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association, which represents 90 per cent. of UK toy manufacturers, has expressed incredulity that measures could limit the availability of harmless and popular toys, of which it estimates there are between  15 million and 30 million in circulation. It surely cannot be right that access to toys should be limited due to the actions of a tiny minority.

Dawn Butler: I must stress that the purpose of the Bill is to curb the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms, not toys. Although the Opposition talk about shooting on their estates, we are trying to curb the shootings that we see on our estates in the inner cities. When someone is faced with someone holding a gun to their head, and it looks real, they do not think about whether it is a real gun or an imitation but about their life and whether they are going to lose it. That is what the Bill is intended to addresss.

Jonathan Djanogly: I have not discussed shooting on any estates. More to the point, we are discussing realistic imitation firearms, which have as much to do with shootings on estates as they have with ballooning. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to make her point on clause stand part.
All the businesses concerned expressed great sympathy for the aims of the Bill but feared that it was not likely to achieve them; they also thought that the Bill did not encompass any consideration for the grave consequences that would ensue for people involved in perfectly legitimate businesses and for the public who enjoyed the pastimes that those businesses facilitated.
One such hobby, from whose enthusiasts I have received many letters of concern, is airsoft. The potential impact of the Bill on airsoft was discussed on Second Reading, but it may be worth restating that it is a popular hobby, similar to paintball, using replica weapons to fire small pellets instead of paintballs. There are currently estimated to be about 10,000 regular airsoft players in the UK. About 70 game sites around the country stand to be affected. No provision has been made in new clause 20 even for a defence for airsoft enthusiasts, which means that their sport as it currently exists will be ended.
One airsoft enthusiast, Mr. John Neal, of Southampton, wrote to me that
“this is a very safety conscious sport, enjoyed by thousands of law-abiding people across the country”.
The pellets fired by the weapons—if one can describe them as weapons—weigh approximately 0.2 g and are fired with less than 1 J of energy, which was, I think, the dividing line mentioned by the Minister. That is hardly likely to inflict pain. Indeed, I am informed that it is similar to the force of lightly bouncing a tennis ball on the floor. Above all, the participants do not use the same kind of cheap, easily obtainable replicas that are used by criminals. No criminal is likely to spend around £400, which is the price at which airsoft replicas retail, for an imitation firearm, when they could obtain a real weapon for a fraction of the price.
Furthermore, airsoft replicas are some of the most difficult replicas for a criminal to attempt to convert. In the words of Mr. Neal:
“If anyone was foolish enough to try to convert one of these things, then they’d end up with perhaps one of the most lethal weapons ... lethal to the moron firing it, that is!”
In any case, given the price of the replicas, anyone with sufficient criminal contacts to enable them to obtain real 9 mm bullets for a converted airsoft gun would be more likely to buy a real gun.

Stephen McCabe: Why cannot the airsofters simply paint their weapons bright orange or red, so that they fall within the definition? We should not then have to worry.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister may have come to the Committee today with a few brightly coloured photographs saying that that is what she intends the entire shooting community to do, but the airsoft community will, I assure the hon. Gentleman, have no idea what the Government expect. Furthermore, why should they have to kowtow before the Government? Why should they not be able to enjoy their legal pursuit?
Amendment No. 264 would offer airsoft an exemption. Government new clause 20 ignores it altogether. The Minister has said that she will review the matter and I hope that she will, but we are here today to consider what has been offered.
Historical re-enactment is another matter on which I have received dozens of representations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has said that he has serious concerns on the question, and the Minister said that regulations would be introduced—but again, that will be after we have dealt with the Bill. We have no idea what is intended, and hundreds of thousands of re-enactors are concerned about what will happen to their activity.
The Government have attempted to exclude historical re-enactors from the section 30 offence, but there is concern that that approach will not work as intended, not least because the definition of historical re-enactment is inadequate. The definition of historical re-enactments in new clause 20(6) reflects a stereotyped and outdated understanding of historical re-enactments and once again reveals the Government’s inadequate consultation. Would that narrow definition assist somebody acquiring an imitation firearm for the purpose of giving a costumed talk to schoolchildren on, say, the role of the Home Guard during the second world war? I think that that was the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).
A costumed talk or lecture is not a re-enactment of an historical event, so might not fall within the definition. Would a fictionalised adaptation of an actual historical event fall within the definition? The Sealed Knot society does not re-enact historical battles blow by blow. Will that be taken on board? For those reasons, we have included an exemption for educators, colleges and schools in paragraph (g) of amendment No. 264 as well as providing exemption for cultural or theatrical purposes in amendment No. 265.
In addition, defining qualifying historical enactments by reference to the organisers’ identities is fraught with difficulty. We struggle to see how it will  be possible to compile an exhaustive list of recognised persons or bodies. As one anxious re-enactor, my constituent Mr. Stephen Lloyd of Huntingdon, has told me,
“historical weapons ... are invariably very expensive (hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds) and so are entirely different from the cheap (tens of pounds) replicas causing the majority of crimes”.
The Desert Raiders Association, a group specialising in world war two special forces re-enactments, writes that
“the vast majority of weapons used by groups such as ours are so old and unwieldy that they would make the most unsuitable weapons for modern violent crime”.
Indeed it is difficult to imagine criminals making use of the group’s collection of historic heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft cannon and anti-tank guns. That might sound amusing, but we believe that such groups should be exempted from the possibility of committing a criminal offence in the first place.
Members of the Desert Raiders Association fear that their current living history educational activities—

Jim Sheridan: In the unlikely scenario that somebody were holding an imitation gun to your head, would your first question be, “How much did that gun cost?”

Eric Forth: Order. May I remind hon. Members that they should not use the personal, but should stick to the traditional form of address in Committee.

Jonathan Djanogly: I just want to make the point that if a criminal could afford to spend £1,000 on a realistic imitation gun, he would spend that money on a much more effective real gun.
Members of the Desert Raiders Association fear that their current living history educational activities at public shows will be badly affected. If resale of private collections becomes illegal and the UK market effectively ceases to operate, it might even become impossible for such groups and private collectors to insure their valuable
weapons. Those individuals accepted and endorsed the objective of reducing violent crime, but did not believe that this was the right way to do so. As another re-enactor, Mr Mick Wilson, wrote,
“I can understand you need to lower gun crime, but I have never heard of ... a WW2 Thompson sub-machine gun used in a crime. We have recently bought a de-activated 1942 Bofors Anti-Aircraft gun, which is on four wheels and weighs two and a half tonnes ... is this a likely criminal weapon?”
Amendment No. 264 would expressly exempt such large weapons.
Paul Wisken has written to me expressing concern that training events for re-enactments, which are not performed before an audience, should also be excluded from the clause 30 offence. Those are similar to rehearsals for theatrical performance. Will the Minister confirm that such rehearsals are covered by the defence in new clause 20?
Similarly, new clause 20 refers to the re-enactment of historical events. Does it refer only to set piece re-enactments of events such as battles, or more broadly to all historical periods and living history? Similarly,  there is considerable concern from owners of historic collections, such as the Cobbaton combat collection in Devon, a privately owned and operated museum containing the largest collection of 20th century militaria in the south-west. The owner, Mr Preston Isaac, wrote that his collection might become worthless, raising concerns for the survival and future development of public and private collections. British collections of historic weaponry are, says Mr. Isaac, the “envy of the world” and it would be a tragedy to see historic weapons taken abroad to be sold at market prices, never to be seen in this country again. He continues,
“Equally, there are many historic armoured vehicles awaiting or undergoing restoration, often with main armaments missing. Manufacturers of replica gun barrels, for example, which a museum such as this needs to restore an historic tank, might face prosecution”.
I appreciate that new clause 20 provides a defence for a museum or gallery that does not distribute any profits, but we do not consider it to be wide enough.
Another example is the military collection at Muckleburgh, which was founded in 1988 and based on an historic military site and world war two camp. It houses a large collection of tanks, guns and vehicles and, since it opened, has been visited by more than 1 million tourists, including children and veterans. It has even been used as the site for films and documentaries, as well as for lectures and training. Will such private collections fall within the defence provided in new clause 20? If not, will she consider creating an exemption for such collections?
Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Whyte, director of special operations at Pilgrims Security Services, has written to us to express concern that the new clause would restrict the company’s ability to use blank firing handguns and/or soft fire air weapons during its hostile environment training courses for media personnel and its specialist counter-terrorism training courses. Its use of such weapons is restricted to military training areas, the use of which is licensed on each occasion through appropriate Ministry of Defence channels and is delivered by former military and police instructors with due regard to the highest standards of safety.
One begins to see the true potential, and perhaps unintended, impact of the new clause when one reads letters such as this, which express grave and legitimate concerns. I accept that there will now be a defence for some of these activities, but that is not enough. Moreover, the defences do not cover all the activities that I have mentioned.
The list that we have proposed in amendment No. 264 is far broader than the defences that the Government have suggested, and it provides for outright exemption rather than a mere defence. I believe that all deactivated weapons are now excluded from the definition of a realistic imitation firearm, but will the Minister confirm that?
Paragraph (d) of amendment No. 264 refers to large machine guns, armoured vehicles and machine guns. These are hardly the sort of weapons used in violent crime, and they should be exempted. They are often historical weapons that pose no threat, but may not be  deactivated. It is reasonable that members of the public and not only museums should be able to continue to own and use them.
Paragraph (e) proposes the exemption of realistic imitations that are used in security dog training and security guard training. Such training seems to be an obvious exemption, so will the Minister explain how those uses will be protected? Paragraph (f) would exempt imitation firearms that are used in hunt dog training. These firearms are used for a safe and constructive purpose, and again are not the sort of weapons used by criminals.
Paragraph (g) emphasises the need for an exemption for educational purposes. Paragraph (i) exempts starting guns used at sporting events. Paragraph (j) exempts imitations used in airsoft. Paragraph (k) covers theatre and cinema, which are covered by the defence, but we also seek exemption for castles and historic houses, as well as sporting events. The very large number of people involved in those activities deserve to be exempted and not merely offered a defence against the crime.
For the sake of certainty, paragraph (l) would exempt parts of the imitation weapons that I mentioned, although the Minister has already addressed that. Paragraph (m) seeks exemption for the specialist suppliers and armourers of the weapons that I have mentioned.
The Home Office’s regulatory impact assessment on imitation firearms states:
“There is an extensive range of offences in place to deal with incidents involving the misuse of imitation firearms. These measures are starting to have some impact and a total of 2,766 offenders were charged, cautioned or convicted in 2004 for the offences under”
the relevant sections. This is another clear example of the Government ignoring their own advice. Hon. Members might now be asking themselves on what basis the Government drafted the Bill and where these clauses came from. The Bill does not seem to have come from the consultation or from the advice that they have been giving people.
The figures obviously suggest that we should enforce existing laws and realise the impact of recent law changes before rushing into yet further legislation that will only affect hundreds of thousands of businesses and people pursuing their hobbies. Surely that would be a far more measured and reasoned approach than pushing the new clause through, with all its restrictions on imitations, without first showing the impact of existing measures that the Government put in place only two years ago.
The exemption for antiques is consistent with the Firearms Act 1968—indeed, it is desirable considering the high value of some antiques and the extensive collections throughout the country. I commend the Government for finally realising that, and am pleased that antiques will not be considered to be realistic imitation firearms, although I have asked the Minister to clarify what is covered by the term antiques.
Amendment No. 270 is necessary because the clause does not clarify whether firing replicas—working replicas such as black-powder muskets—are excluded. The Minister asked what exactly I was getting at: that is it. Black powder is the propellant that most period muskets use, and is often used for historical re-enactment, theatre and cinema, as are imitations of antiques. I urge the Government to exclude imitations of antique firearms from the definition of a realistic imitation firearm. Most 15th to 20th-century living history societies use modern replicas of muskets, or similar, because the originals are unobtainable or too precious to use. It would probably be assumed that firing weapons are excluded, but the Bill does not say so. The amendment serves to clarify the definition and to provide an exemption for antique-looking firearms that fire with black powder.
I ask the Minister again: why go for the defence option, rather than the exemption option outright? We still believe that the list of exemptions, or defences, is too limited, which is why we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

John Thurso: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about his amendments, some of which I have considerable sympathy with, and to the Minister’s comments. There is a principle behind what we are trying to do. We recognise that we have a serious problem with gun crime in this country, which, unfortunately, occurs more in urban areas than rural settings. It is difficult to work out how best to address the problem and get the right balance between stopping those things that are clearly a cause of crime and prohibiting legitimate activities that are justifiably pursued by people. That brings us to the issue of imitation, deactivated and similar weapons.
I shall touch first on the issue of airsoft. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) received a briefing from people who practise airsoft, and I understand that they are happy to have their weapons painted pink in order to continue pursuing that hobby. Less helpfully, however, she has also discovered problems with that approach: apparently, in America, criminals have started painting their weapons orange to counteract it. I am not sure if that is a serious problem. Clearly, there may be a solution there. I am well aware that the Minister has considered airsoft; I hope that there is a way around the problems and that it can continue.
The final point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) about antique weapons and black powder is a valid one. I hope that the Minister will consider antique and imitation antique firearms, which are clearly different. I suspect that a muzzle-loading period piece is not the first weapon that an aspiring street criminal would seek to obtain. I submit that the real problem is with pistols and smaller personal machine guns, such as the Uzi or Heckler and Koch.
There is one thing that the Bill does not tackle, and it was not tackled in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 or the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997,  which were enacted just before and just after the 1997 general election. That is the glorification of guns and gun crime by the media. While films and television productions consistently portray death and injury as not terribly worrying and consistently portray the use of weapons as something that the average macho man should do, I believe that they will add to the culture of glorifying the gun. Somewhere along the line, I hope that the Government will tackle that.

Jeremy Wright: The Bill is rightly designed to address the criminal use of firearms and imitation firearms and to limit their use, as so eloquently described by many Labour Members. Should not the Government bear the burden of proof by demonstrating that some of the weapons, particularly those described in amendment No. 264, have contributed to criminal behaviour? Is she aware of any rash of criminal behaviour that involved starting pistols or the sort of weapons used in hunt dog training, or the many other examples contained in the amendment? If she is not aware of such instances, is it not appropriate that those weapons should be excluded from the ambit of the criminal law?

Hazel Blears: I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon—why a defence and not an exemption? I hoped that my fairly rapid description of the general criminal law had addressed that point, but I am sure that he will have the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.
People simply have to raise the fact that they could fall within one of the defences, and if they raise that fact, it comes before the court. It is then the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not apply. That is a long-established and accepted way of drafting legislation. Those who have a defence are not put to an undue standard of proof, or the burden on them is that they have to prove their defence beyond reasonable doubt. It simply raises the fact that they could have access to a defence. It is then a matter for the prosecution to prove all elements of that prosecution.

Mark Prisk: Does the Minister accept that the benefit of an exemption is that it would remove the need to got to court? Given the state of the judicial system, that might be welcome.

Hazel Blears: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but someone may seek to raise a spurious defence. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. At that point, the person may say that he wants to raise a defence. The case will then be litigated in the normal manner. If someone falls within one of the definitions, there would be no prospect of a conviction and it would not be in the public interest to bring a prosecution. Innocent people will not be charged with offences and find themselves in court. I think that there are sufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that that is not the case. I assure  the Committee that the Bill is not drafted differently from similar legislation but simply sets out the defences that might be available.
The hon. Members for Huntingdon and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) spoke about antique imitation weapons. If you have a real antique that fires, it is a firearm. That is not covered by the Bill but is dealt with in firearms legislation and would need a certificate and so on. An antique imitation from before 1870 will not be caught by the Bill. We are talking about realistic imitations of modern weapons. That is what we want to deal with, and the cut-off point is 1870.
As for hunting dogs and blank-firing pistols, I have seen the guns that are used and they are realistic imitations. I see no reason why those guns could not be painted or made in a different way so that they no longer fell within the definition of a realistic imitation. I do not know why it is necessary for a gun that is used to train a dog to collect its quarry, or a gun used to start a race, to be a realistic imitation firearm. The same noise can be made with a gun that is red, transparent or of a different manufacture. I see no problem about that.

Jim Sheridan: Will the Minister advise the Committee whether she has any information about how the imitation weapons in question are transported from one event to another? Does she understand the confusion and panic that would be caused if someone were to walk through King’s Cross station with an imitation shotgun? What advice would the police be given about dealing with someone with an imitation weapon at King’s Cross station?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, having imitation weapons without lawful authority or good excuse has been made an offence under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. We shall later debate amendments that would increase the penalty for such behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, that could cause alarm and distress to the public, and it is right that it should be possible to prosecute someone for doing it.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether there had been consultation with manufacturers or with television and film companies, and I confirm that there were extensive discussions with the gun trade associations and the armourers who supply television and film companies. They have been aware of the proposals as they have been developed over the past few months.
If black-powder weapons were real firearms, they would need a certificate. If they were antique imitations, they would not be included in the provisions.

John Thurso: I am afraid that I cannot recall what item of legislation is relevant, but I believe—I stand to be corrected—that black-powder weapons are treated differently under the firearms legislation.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman may have the better of me, but my advice from my officials is that those are real firearms and therefore would not come within the definition of realistic imitation firearms. I  undertake to check that aspect in more detail and return to the Committee, but that is my information at present, and as the hon. Gentleman does not have any more detail either, I am in some difficulty.

Jonathan Djanogly: I believe that the relevant legislation relates to muzzle-loading weapons, which include all black-powder weapons.

Hazel Blears: I am not aware of the detail of that legislation, or whether it takes the weapons concerned out of the ambit of the provisions affecting real firearms. Are the hon. Gentlemen telling me that muzzle-loading black-powder firearms are not real firearms?

Jonathan Djanogly: Correct.

Hazel Blears: I am in some difficulty, as I am being advised that they are firearms. Perhaps I should undertake to carry out some research to resolve that dispute.
The point that I wanted to make is that antique imitations are excluded. If it turns out that I am correct about whether the relevant guns are firearms, those imitations will be excluded.
I understand hon. Members’ concerns, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is right to say that we must get the right balance. That is what I want to do. I shall be pleased if the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has received indications from airsoft players that they would be prepared to adapt their weapons so that they no longer fall within the definition of realistic imitations. That would be significant progress, because I do not want to stop people taking part in airsoft. They enjoy it, and it is great exercise. I have no doubt that it is very good for team-building, morale and motivation. I do not want to stop it, but I do want to stop people getting access to realistic imitation weapons that may be used in those activities.

Jonathan Djanogly: Can the Minister give the Committee an idea of when airsoft users will know what they have to do to their weapons to make them non-realistic?

Hazel Blears: The amendments that we have already passed relate to colour, transparency and size. We have said that we will put in the regulations some more clarification of the kind of colour, with references to British standard numbers rather than to red, yellow or green, which could be subject to interpretation. The amendments would put colour, size and transparency on the face of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the regulations appear in draft form before the Bill goes to be reviewed by their noble Lordships?

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We are endeavouring to work on the regulations as quickly as we can, and I have tried throughout this Bill—during discussion of the alcohol provisions as well—to give members of the Committee extensive indications of the factors that we  are considering, but the regulations will clearly not be available at the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
We are trying to get the balance right. There is a real mischief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) acknowledged that there is a problem. He has asked for information about whether blank starting pistols or pistols for gun dogs have been involved in particular crimes. I do not have the evidence to supply him with in detail, but I understand that those guns could be converted to fire live ammunition and could be involved not only in imitation crimes but in crimes involving real ammunition. I am concerned about such guns, and no one has yet given me any information to convince me why they cannot be bright red, transparent or of some description that does not make them look like realistic imitation firearms. I am yet to be convinced on that point and ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly: I was pleased by the Minister’s clarification on antique imitations, although not particularly happy with the answer. Second world war re-enactors who have non-deactivated guns will also probably not be happy. I still do not see how a non-deactivated heavy duty machine gun could be used in a violent crime.
The defence or exemption argument is something that we will have to come back to. We will want to review that later, although I want to point out that the Minister has excluded certain items, such as deactivated guns. We wish to make the point that large numbers of people are still being ignored, not only in the clause but following the Government’s amendments. They will probably be more concerned now than they were before the Government amendments were added, and on that basis we will later ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 264.

Amendment agreed to.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 30, page 32, line 17, at end insert—
‘(c)provide that the manufacture, modification or sale of an item for the purpose of display for educational or cultural purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (1)(c).’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 265, in clause 30, page 32, line 17, at end insert—
‘(c)provide that the manufacture, modification, sale or bringing into the United Kingdom of a realistic imitation firearm or component part for the purpose of display only for educational, cultural or theatrical purposes shall be exempt from the offence under subsection (1); and
(d)provide that the manufacture, modification, sale or bringing into the United Kingdom of a realistic imitation firearm or component part for the purposes listed in Schedule () be exempt from the offence under subsection (1).’.
No. 308, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(10)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—
(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or
(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),
to prove that the conduct in question was for the purposes of making the imitation firearm available to a museum or gallery.
(11)In this section “museum or gallery” includes any institution which has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest and gives the public access to it.
(12)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—
(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or
(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,
to prove that his conduct was for the purposes of making available an imitation firearm to persons in the service of Her Majesty for the purposes of ceremonial functions carried out by the authority of a Royal Warrant.
(13)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—
(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or
(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,
to prove that his conduct was for the purposes of making the imitation firearm available to persons—
(c)taking part in a theatrical performance or in a rehearsal for such a performance, or
(d)taking part in the production of a cinematograph or television film or a wireless telegraphic broadcast, or
(e)taking part in a historical re-enactment or the commemoration of historical events.’.
Amendment No. 308, which was suggested by the Corporation of London, highlights the potentially harmful effects of the clause on museums, the arts community and certain military-related activities. Government new clause 20 went some way towards addressing the point of the amendment, but concern remains in relation to certain military-related activities.
Subsection (12) of the amendment is intended to address the concern that subsection (1) of the clause could jeopardise certain quasi-military interests. One example is the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers. The company is governed by the terms of a royal warrant, which is essentially an Order in Council granted to it by the Queen in 1955. In addition to undertaking various City duties, most notably in escorting the lord mayor, the company takes part in events such as the royal tournament and the festival of remembrance. The company has a large reserve of replica weapons that lend its activities a sense of occasion and drama. Clearly, this is a legitimate interest that we support and that deserves the protection of the amendment or of inclusion in the defence under new clause 20.

Hazel Blears: The issue of replica weapons for the purpose of ceremonial functions is new to me. We have tried to bring forward exceptions and amendments to meet all the issues that have been discussed with us, but this one was not raised with me when we considered representations. As it is a new issue, and as it appears  that the pikemen and musketeers play a role that is very much welcomed by the City of London, I undertake to consider the matter. It is not my intention to outlaw perfectly legitimate uses of imitation weapons, and if we are talking about a properly controlled situation, and one that people find useful, I certainly undertake to consider it. I ask the hon. Member for Huntingdon to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I will consider it.

John Thurso: While the Minister is considering that, will she also consider the case of the Atholl Highlanders? I am not certain whether, as the only private army in the United Kingdom, it is considered a serving unit of the British Army. Is it covered by the legislation?

Hazel Blears: If the weapons that the Atholl Highlanders use are capable of firing live ammunition, they are real guns, and so will not be caught by the legislation, and imitations from before 1870 will not be caught, either. What we are talking about are imitations post-1870. If the weapons used by either the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers or the Atholl Highlanders are from before 1870, they do not fall within the provisions of the Bill.

John Thurso: I can perhaps help the Minister. The Atholl Highlanders is a regiment of the British Army, but a private army. Queen Victoria, having visited Blair castle, granted the Duke of Atholl the right to raise a private army. As such, during both wars, the Atholl Highlanders saw honourable service, but parade only ceremonially now. Usually, they have the old Lee-Enfield .303 from the last war as their arms. I am concerned that, inadvertently, they might have fallen between two stools. I think that they are probably covered by being part of the Army, but as they are a private army I would be grateful if the Minister could make sure.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for yet more erudite elucidation of the issues. I presume that the Lee-Enfields that they use are real weapons.

John Thurso: Yes.

Hazel Blears: In which case the Atholl Highlanders will be covered under the real weapons legislation and not under the Bill, because we are talking about firearms. If the weapons were imitation Lee-Enfields, we might be in territory in which I would have to consider the matter even further. I am sure that the army to which the hon. Gentleman refers is well equipped with its weapons. In protecting the good people of the area, it no doubt provides a sterling service—

Stephen Pound: Stirling is somewhere else.

Hazel Blears: It seems Stirling is in a different place, but I have no idea where Atholl is and shall have to look at a map.
If there is an issue around ceremonial events, I undertake to look at that further, and to see if we need to come back with any more amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly: On the basis of the Minister’s helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 302, in clause 30, page 33, line 1, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
‘(8)In this section “realistic imitation firearm” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”).’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Amendment proposed: No. 264, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9A)In relation to subsections (2), (3) and (8), the following should be included in the exceptions and exemptions from what constitutes a realistic imitation firearm—
(a)deactivated firearms,
(b)deactivated weapons manufactured before 1983,
(c)deactivated weapons of .50” calibre and over,
(d)large machine guns, armoured vehicles and field guns and military equipment where the deactivated weaponry is intrinsic to the equipment,
(e)realistic imitation firearms used in security dog training and security guard training,
(f)realistic imitation firearms used in hunt dog training,
(g)realistic and deactivated firearms used by educators, colleges and schools,
(h)reproduction components for weapons of .50” calibre and over,
(i)starting pistols,
(j)weapons intended for use in “Airsoft” with a muzzle energy of less that 4 joules including BB guns, air guns and paint balls,
(k)realistic imitation firearms for use in theatre, cinema, museums, castles and historic houses, television and sporting events,
(l)parts of weapons required in relation to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k),
(m)specialist suppliers and armourers relating to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k).’.— [Mr. Djanogly.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Diane Abbott: The debate has been dominated by the interests of hobbyists, businessmen and historical re-enactors. Therefore, it would not be right to let the debate pass without putting on the record the policy context of this important clause.
Although, in common with other Committee members, I have received dozens upon dozens of letters from business people, hobbyists and historical re-enactors, I have not of course received any letters from the thousands of my constituents who have woken up on a Monday morning to see the police incident boards that tell them that yet another shooting has taken place at the end of their road. I have not received any letters from the people who have been injured by drive-by shootings or by accidental shootings at nightclubs and parties. I have not received any letters from mothers who every Saturday night cannot sleep until they know that their children have returned safely from such parties or nightclubs. Above all, I have not received any letters from those mothers and parents from Hackney—and from communities throughout the country—who have had to do what a parent should never have to do, which is to bury their child who has been killed as a consequence of gun crime. It is to speak to those letters unwritten, and those issues untouched on by Opposition Members, that I rise to speak.

Jeremy Wright: Does the hon. Lady accept that it must be possible to draft legislation that deals with the perfectly legitimate concerns she is raising, yet also protects the legitimate interests of those people mentioned by Opposition Members?

Diane Abbott: Of course I do. I think the Government are genuinely trying to do that in their amendments. Until now, the debate has been one-sided, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that on behalf of my constituents and of people who live in Harlesden, Manchester and Birmingham. It would be wrong not to put on the record the concerns of all the people throughout the country who have suffered from gun crime and to put the clause into some sort of context.
The first thing to say is that we as a Government and a society have come a long way on gun crime. It may be a new issue to some Committee members, but it has been an issue in Hackney for 10 or 15 years. I well remember a new chief superintendent in Stoke Newington coming to ask me about what issues he should take up. When I said to him that as a black person, mother and member of the community, I was concerned by the increasing number of anecdotes about young people who went out for a night’s clubbing with a gun as a style accessory and about young people not necessarily firing guns, but showing them as part of their interaction as gang members, that chief superintendent said to me, “Well, they are not using them on my men, so it’s not my problem, is it?”
I am sorry to say that there was a time when the assumption was that because black people were shooting other black people—as some policemen used to put it, “bad on bad”—gun crime was not of wider concern. However, I am glad to say that the Metropolitan police has moved on and I commend the work of Trident and policemen up and down the country. I am glad to say that the Government have moved on; I commend them for their efforts to raise the penalties for carrying a gun and for this important clause, which will make imitations illegal.
I have heard much from Opposition Members about historical re-enactments, and I have nothing against hobbyists. However, let me remind Opposition Members of the views of the police. For some time, the Police Federation has been of the opinion that a complete ban on imitations must be part of any serious war against gun crime. Let me cite what was said at the Association of Chief Police Officers annual conference in Birmingham. Deputy chief constable Alan Green said that the problem of imitations must not be ignored. He went on to say,
“I feel the service is going to be in the dock for having shot some young person ... The threat from imitation firearms isn’t that of slight injuries to young people, it is that you are likely to shoot someone at the age of 13 in the not too distant future. The service will then have to answer some serious questions about what we’ve done to tackle gun crime.”
Given that the policemen at the sharp end of the fight against gun crime are so clear about the importance of banning imitations and so insistent about the problems that imitations bring—when faced with a gun, they do not know whether it is imitation or real and fear that children might be shot—I am surprised that Opposition Members take the issue so lightly.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady is making a powerful and passionate presentation, and rightly so. This issue is crucial and the former attitude of the police that she described was disgraceful. I share her pleasure in seeing that it has changed. However, does she not accept that at the heart of this issue—whether we are talking about imitations or other things—is the culture that underlies it, and that the guns are merely totemic of that?

Diane Abbott: That opinion is comfortable for people who want to protect the interests of those who shoot for fun—hobbyists or whoever. However, there is no question but that, serious as the gun crime problem is in this country, it makes up only a fraction of that in the United States because we have much stricter, firmer regulations on the use and possession of guns.
What we do about the availability of guns—legal or illegal—the imitations and the hardware has a bearing on the number of people caught up in violent incidents and, ultimately, shot. This is not the time nor the place to talk about the gun culture of some of the young people walking the streets of our city, but I tell the hon. Gentleman this: what was described in the past as a black youth culture approach to gun crime is bleeding—I use the metaphor advisedly—out to other communities.
In Hackney, there are issues with Turkish gun crime, and in the west midlands, Asian youngsters have guns, so let us not talk only about youth culture, but turn again to the hardware. The problem in London is that more than half the weapons seized by the police are converted replicas. I do not want to inconvenience people who want to dress up as cavaliers or world war two soldiers, but that problem is why the amendment has been tabled.
Opposition Members will say, “But the weapons are replicas after all, so what harm can they do?” Well, as I said earlier, the amount of criminal offences involving imitation firearms has rocketed by 66 per cent. The most important fact, and why the police are concerned, is that it is almost impossible to distinguish many imitation weapons from real weapons. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green explained about her work at the Metropolitan Police Authority and said how, when she saw guns—imitation and real—side by side, she could not tell the difference. How is a policeman to tell?
One reason why the police have campaigned on the issue for so long—apparently unheard by Opposition Members—is that they are frightened. When they are called to an incident at which there is a young man with a gun in his hand, how are they to know whether it is real or imitation? We have heard the public furore on all sides of the political debate about the unfortunate shooting of the Brazilian at Stockwell. What would the public say if a 13-year-old was shot because he was carrying an imitation gun that looked too much like a real weapon?
Replica guns are responsible for a substantial proportion of United Kingdom gun crimes. Many of the guns are converted readily at low cost into lethal weapons. We believe that stemming the flow of imitation and replica firearms could have a positive impact on reducing the number of people who die or are injured by firearms. Replica guns put policemen under pressure. It costs thousands of pounds each month for armed policeman to be called out to incidents when it turns out that the gun involved was only a replica. Moreover, the wide availability of replica weapons strengthens the argument for the police to be armed routinely, which neither the police nor I want. It would simply escalate issues on the ground in the communities.
Reference has been made to toys. I do not think children should be using guns as toys. I shall refer to an incident that happened last week: four handguns—two of which were loaded—and a pump-action shotgun, and more than 60 rounds of ammunition, were found hidden in a children’s bedroom. That is the sort of culture that I want to stamp out in my community. Children should not be inducted into the gun culture by being encouraged or allowed to have imitation weapons. An early interest in guns, which may take the form of imitation guns, might lead young people into the illegal market of real handguns. Those guns are currently being carried as a fashion accessory, and failure to ban imitation guns would send out completely the wrong message.
It is inevitable in such a Committee that we deal with detail. It is the proper role of Opposition Members to query Ministers about details and to tease out the thinking behind those details. However, it would be wrong for a Member of Parliament who represented an area such as mine, which has one of the highest levels of death by guns and one of the highest levels of gun crime in the country, not to draw the Committee’s attention from the detail to the reality that the clause  is designed to address. I have campaigned for a long time for a ban on imitation guns, and I welcome the clause. I certainly believe that it should stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a moving and thoughtful speech. It is proper to recognise that she has contributed greatly to the debate on gun crime and that she has, indeed, spoken out against it. However, that is not an adequate reason to pass bad law, and we have great worries about the clause.
Following Dunblane, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2.) Act 1997 generally prohibited handguns of .22 calibre or above. The latest available firearms statistics that I have seen relate to the year ending December 2004. As for the type of weapons used, handguns accounted for the majority of offences. Since they were banned, their use in crime has doubled in less than four years, while the use of rifles and shotguns in crime has remained fairly constant in absolute terms and has fallen as a proportion of all crime involving firearms.
The only effect of banning handguns was to deprive law-abiding citizens of their sport. It did not reduce the number of firearms used in violent crime. The opposite happened. Following the ban, more guns were used. We believe that enactment of the clause may only repeat the mistakes of the past. As almost every interested party has pointed out to us, it will further restrict the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens to pursue their hobbies and sports, while doing little to address the issue of guns being used in violent crime. I must say to the hon. Lady that I have not received one letter in support of the clause. Even if we accepted the premise of the clause, and even after the mishmash of amendments proposed by the Government only last week, we still believe it to be poorly drafted and, frankly, unworkable.
Let us consider the legislation that exists at the moment. There are three main controls in law on the misuse of imitation firearms. The first is section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982, which provides for an imitation firearm to be treated as a real firearm in law if:
“(a)it has the appearance of being a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act ... applies; and
(b)it is so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible into a firearm to which that section applies.”
That law was introduced principally to prevent the sale of blank-firing imitation firearms of the kind that could be converted to fire live ammunition by fairly simple changes. The second main control is through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994. That creates a criminal offence of possessing a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear or unlawful violence. The measure was intended to allow the police to deal with the misuse of imitations as a threat by criminals.
Several sections in the Firearms Act 1968, aiming at the prevention of crime and the preservation of public safety, also deal with the misuse of imitations. For example, under section 17, it is an offence to make use  of a firearm or an imitation firearm with intent to resist or prevent arrest. Furthermore, a person found in possession of an imitation when arrested for certain specified offences is guilty of an offence unless he can show that he had it for a lawful object. Under section 18:
“It is an offence for a person to have with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or prevent the arrest of another”.
Section 20, on trespassing with a firearm, also applies to an imitation firearm by virtue of section 2(1) of the 1994 Act.
The third main control is through section 19 of the 1968 Act, which was amended by section 37 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to create a new arrestable offence of possessing an imitation weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The aim was not to interfere unduly with the legitimate use of imitations, but to allow the police to deal with those who were either misusing them or carrying them around in suspicious circumstances.
As the Home Office regulatory impact assessment points out, the current definition of an imitation firearm in section 57 of the 1968 Act is wide-ranging, and could include exact metal replicas designed as collectors’ items, soft airguns designed to fire plastic pellets with very low muzzle energy, some children’s toys and, probably, antiques. The RIA says that the definition works in practice by virtue of the fact that it is subject to a qualifier relating either to design—that is, to whether the imitation is readily convertible—or to misuse; that is, to whether it is possessed to cause fear of unlawful violence. The Home Office RIA on imitation firearms says that that is a workable definition because of the existing legislation.
The Bill removes the qualifiers that make the definition workable. No qualifiers means that the definition becomes unworkable. We can pass as many laws as we like, but ultimately the question must be one of enforcement. The Home Office RIA says that a total ban on the possession of imitation firearms
“would make new imitation firearms unavailable and would significantly reduce the existing stock. However, it is likely that given the large number of imitations already sold, without any records being kept, many would remain in circulation.”
The Government again seem to be ignoring their own advice. Hon. Members should keep in mind the figures that I have quoted. When the RIA talks about large numbers, we are talking about some 30 million imitation firearms in the UK, excluding toys, of which there are another 30 million to 50 million.
The RIA goes on to say that a ban on the possession of imitation firearms would create the biggest burden for business. Excluding toys, sales are estimated at £30 million to £40 million. There would be additional costs to the police and prosecution authorities in pursuing offenders.
Another anomaly created by the clause is that although import, sale or modification of imitation firearms would be banned, ownership would not be. However, there would continue to be no requirement for a record of ownership, thus making illegal transfer between people absurdly easy. That demonstrates  once again that only the law-abiding will be affected by the Bill. The clause is fraught with difficulty and has the potential to produce serious unintended consequences. As the save airsoft campaign petition notes:
“The proposed revisions to the Firearms Acts specifically relating to ’realistic imitation firearms’ are merely more draconian measures that promise the unbelievable, unfairly trample upon minorities and further erode our civil rights. The proposal that making it illegal for responsible people to own replicas will deter the criminal fraternity is pure nonsense.”
There are three key issues that the Committee should consider. First, in practice, “imitation” could mean anything. We discussed that matter earlier in the debate, including the case of the individual who held up a bank with a banana in a paper bag.
Secondly, there are 30 million realistic imitation weapons in circulation, the vast majority of which are owned, used or collected by honest individuals. The argument that millions should suffer for the sake of a handful of criminals is one that should be examined carefully.
Thirdly, will the clause work? We say that it will not. Handguns were banned, but they are now used more than ever before. The existing laws that I have mentioned are better than the one that we are considering, but they are not being adequately enforced. Airsoft replicas retail at hundreds of pounds—much more than the cost of a real handgun. With 30 million imitation weapons in circulation, we suggest that the only way of addressing the situation that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned would be to have a total ban on replicas. I would not have agreed with such a ban, and would have argued against it, but it would have given us the basis for a more rational debate. The hon. Lady did not support a total ban; she supports the Government’s clause, which will not work for the reasons that I have given. We shall vote against the clause.

John Thurso: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. There is much in what he said with which I agree. There are severe problems with the clause. The discussions that we have had on a number of the issues have shown that there is room for the clause to be developed. As it stands, it is by no means ideal.
However, having had the privilege of starting my parliamentary career in another place, and being on a downward trajectory, I am somewhat more sanguine about the process of legislation, as I know the work that will be done in the other place. I believe that the message that we should send to the other place is not that the clause should be struck down, but that it should be amended so that it becomes more workable. I could not support the hon. Gentleman in his previous amendment because I felt that there was too much in it: it opened up the clause too much.
If the hon. Gentleman were to press the present amendment to a vote, we would support the Government, not because we think that this is the best clause since sliced bread—we certainly do not—but because we think that the overarching issue is of such  importance that the message to their Lordships should be “The clause stays, but please amend it as much as you can.”

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for Huntingdon made a number of points, but I fear that he overstated his case. He mentioned Dunblane, and suggested that handgun crime had increased. The raw statistics in the UK may indicate that, but there is no universal trend. After the 1997 Acts came into force, 6,500 large-calibre handguns, 1,700 small-calibre handguns and some 144,000 rounds of ammunition were surrendered in Scotland. Where that legislation was taken to heart, it was extremely successful. As I pointed out earlier, the number of handgun crimes in Scotland is incredibly small.
I associate myself with the statement made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. The gun crime that she described is worrying and real, and anything that can be done in the Bill should be done, because I do not want the handgun crime that occurs in Hackney and elsewhere to spread to my constituency and other parts of the country, where there is little or no such crime at present.
Much of what the Government are doing in the clause about imitations is quite right, not least because many such weapons can be changed to fire live rounds, and action must be taken to prevent that wherever possible. However, I agree that the clause is not perfect and I am sure that the Minister will give us some comfort that some of the issues that have been raised on both sides of the Committee will be properly addressed.
Although this is a serious debate, I make one plea as regards re-enactments. The Minister suggested that proper, real re-enactment societies would be safe and would be covered by the exemptions or the criminal defence provided. However, I ask her and her Department to consider seriously people who do spoof re-enactments as shows. I know one or two people who do this at birthday parties and other events as a business. These are not real or proper re-enactments, but people nevertheless dress up in period costumes and sometimes have the accoutrements. I ask the Minister to consider that as a point of principle.
We have all had a great deal of correspondence about airsoft, and people have visited our constituency offices. This lunch time, I had an e-mail from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), in the Western Isles. He had just noticed that the Committee was sitting and asked that we please keep the airsoft club there open. I make that pitch on behalf of my hon. Friend.

Hazel Blears: This has been a very interesting debate, with contributions from a range of Members. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who set out in graphic, real terms, which drew on her own experience, the problem at which the Bill is aimed. There is no better illustration of the problem that we face.
I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon and other Opposition Members accept—the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has done so before—that there is a real problem out there and that we are doing our best to draft legislation that targets that mischief, but which, at the same time, is not so broad as to bring within its ambit people who are genuinely going about their business, whether it involves historical re-enactments, TV and film, or museums and cultural displays. That is not what the Bill is aimed at: it is aimed at people with realistic imitations that could be used to frighten and threaten others and to cause them the distress and anxiety that we have discussed. Last year, there were 3,268 offences involving imitation weapons, so there is clearly a significant problem. Although the majority of such offences are concentrated in our big cities, the issue concerns us all, irrespective of what kind of constituency we represent.
I agree with hon. Members that banning realistic imitations will not of itself ensure that we do away with the gun crime problem in this country; it would be absurd of me to suggest otherwise. However, the Bill is an additional measure, which will help us and give the police extra tools to tackle the problem. All the examples given by the hon. Member for Huntingdon related to the use of realistic imitations, but the Bill is about banning their manufacture, supply and import so that we can reduce the supply of those weapons; it is not directed at their use.
I do not pretend that the clause is perfect and I have undertaken to consider a number of issues further to see whether we can introduce measures. We have the regulation-making power in subsection (2)(b) so that we can look at circumstances in which we might need to consider exemptions and exceptions. When we drafted the Bill, we included a provision saying that there would need to be exceptions and exemptions and that we would, of course, come forward with them; we did not introduce the Bill saying that we could outlaw all realistic imitation weapons for everyone. Indeed, the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that we would consider making exceptions and exemptions. It would be difficult to draft legislation otherwise.
The Committee should not forget that many people, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Brent, South (Ms Butler), have been campaigning for a long time, but they have always been told that it is too difficult to draft a definition that does not unduly interfere with the rights of decent, law-abiding people. They were told that it was beyond lawyers to come up with that sort of definition, but we have done it. I do not say that it is a perfect definition, finely crafted, and honed within an inch of its life, and that it will cover every determination. I have no doubt that we will come forward with other words and propositions to tighten the provision and to make it as appropriate as we can. Indeed, we have already undertaken to reconsider ceremonial events.
There is a real problem out there. We have tried to address it by making the legislation as proportionate as we can, but I am determined that we should not allow an increase in the supply of realistic imitation weapons, which all too often are being used by young people in some of our communities. That campaign is supported by the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, who say that they want to see it happen. That makes it a pretty reasonable thing to do.
I must tell the hon. Member for Huntingdon that although the clause is not perfect in every specific, tiny detail, it is not appropriate to say that we should do nothing. If we took that view as legislators, we would be defeated not only because of the difficulties of technical drafting but because of a lack of political will. We on the Government Benches have the political will—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us—to target the mischiefs that unfortunately cause far too many people to live in fear and to feel threatened; those people should have the right to go about their day-to-day business in peace, comfort and tranquillity.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 5.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Specification for imitation firearms

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 31, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1)If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any imitation firearm, or type, model or class of imitation firearm, will create a danger to public safety, he may by regulations, made after consulting such persons or bodies appearing to him to represent those trading in, or using, imitation firearms as he shall consider appropriate, prohibit—
(a)the manufacture of such imitation firearms;
(b)the modification of firearms or imitation firearms so that they become such imitation firearms;
(c)the sale of such imitation firearms; and
(d)the bringing into Great Britain of such imitation firearms,
unless the imitation firearms conform to such specifications and conditions as may be set out in the regulations.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 277, in clause 31, page 33, line 16, after ‘requiring’, insert ‘realistic’.
No. 278, in clause 31, page 33, line 21, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 279, in clause 31, page 33, line 23, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 280, in clause 31, page 33, line 25, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 281, in clause 31, page 33, line 27, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 282, in clause 31, page 33, line 28, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 283, in clause 31, page 33, line 40, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.
No. 284, in clause 31, page 33, line 42, after ‘of’, insert ‘realistic’.
No. 285, in clause 32, page 34, line 13, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.
No. 286, in clause 32, page 34, line 15, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.
No. 287, in clause 32, page 34, line 30, in column 2, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.

Jonathan Djanogly: Amendment No. 297, a probing amendment, was suggested by the British Shooting Sport Council. A realistic imitation firearm is broadly defined as being indistinguishable from a real firearm by someone other than an expert on close examination or as a result of an attempt to load or fire it. The decision about whether something is a mere toy, an imitation firearm or a realistic firearm would depend on the circumstances of the case. Juries are likely to come to different conclusions about identical imitations, resulting in the law becoming vague and unpredictable.
The amendment would provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the manufacture, sale, import and modification of firearms or imitation firearms if he is satisfied that such firearms would create a danger to public safety. It would also amend the clause so that regulations can be made only after consultation with the persons or bodies who represent those trading in or using imitation firearms. The amendment would also remove the unnecessary complication of having to distinguish between realistic imitation firearms and imitation firearms.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 277 to 284 is to make clause 31 consistent with other clauses that relate to realistic imitation firearms. The strict specifications should apply only to imitations that could be thought to be realistic imitation firearms, not non-realistic imitations.
In the RIA that the Home Office published on the amendment to introduce tougher manufacturing standards to ensure that imitation firearms cannot be converted to fire live ammunition, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to make an  imitation that cannot be converted by a person of real skill and knowledge. Indeed, it is not possible to prevent such a person from making a gun from scratch. Nevertheless, the Government believe that it is important to introduce much stricter standards to tackle the problem at manufacturer and importer level.
Why are the Government once again ignoring their advice and proceeding with the stricter specifications when they know that the impact on crime would be negligible, while the impact on business would be significant?
Amendments Nos. 285 to 287 are identical consequential amendments that relate to clause 32. The amendments also avoid the possible nonsense of someone under 18 being unable to buy a toy water pistol, or even a potato gun.

Hazel Blears: Clause 31 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that require imitation firearms to conform to specifications. Those specifications may be set out in regulations or approved by persons in a way set out in the regulations.
A person will be guilty of an offence if he or she manufactures or imports an imitation firearm that does not conform to the specifications. It is also an offence to modify an imitation or real firearm to create an imitation that does not conform to the specifications.
To help the Committee, I shall explain that the provisions are aimed primarily at blank-firing imitations, whether they are realistic or not, and to deactivated firearms. We propose to make regulations that will require any blank-firing imitation to be made with an inclusion that will make it almost impossible to convert it to fire live ammunition. That inclusion is a metal insertion that cannot be drilled out in order to convert the firearm.
The amendments would limit that power, either by linking it to specific imitations that are considered to pose a threat to public safety or by confining it to realistic imitations only. Therefore one could have an unrealistic imitation that could be converted to fire real ammunition. That is a real mischief.
The amendments would defeat the legislation’s purpose. Were they made, an unrealistic imitation that could still be converted would not have to conform to the specifications. To protect the public, we want to ensure that both realistic imitations and non-realistic imitations must conform to those specifications.

Jonathan Djanogly: If they apply to non-realistic imitations, presumably toys could be included within the clause’s ambit.

Hazel Blears: If unrealistic imitations could be converted to fire live ammunition, that is a mischief at which we are aiming. If a toy could not be converted to fire live ammunition, it would not fall within the definition given.
We also want the provisions to ensure that firearms are deactivated to strict standards. At present, no legal requirement exists for the proof house to approve a firearm that is being deactivated. If the proof house  approves the deactivation, that evidence could persuade people that the firearm has been properly deactivated. There is no strict legal requirement, however, to have it deactivated to that very high standard. We want to use the regulations to ensure that when a firearm is deactivated to produce a non-realistic imitation it will not be possible to reactivate it. We want to close a loophole to ensure that firearms are deactivated to a proper standard and are no longer a threat to the public.
The next set of amendments would restrict the offence of purchase by a person under 18 of an imitation firearm to the purchase of realistic imitation firearms. I have some sympathy with the idea that children should be able to buy toy firearms if they are sufficiently non-realistic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington does not think that children should ever be allowed to buy them or probably even to play with them, and I am sure that some hon. Members will take that view.
It has been our clear view for a long time that we want to deal with the availability of imitation weapons in general, quite apart from the issue of imposing more stringent restrictions on realistic imitation weapons. However, I am prepared to consider whether we should study the area more closely. I am conscious of the issues relating to paintball guns and airsoft guns—although I am encouraged to learn that airsoft guns will become non-realistic. Matters remain to be resolved about paintball guns, however, and the age at which they can be purchased.
I am prepared to consider the matter more closely, to see whether we can avoid a ridiculous state of affairs in which it would not be possible to buy a water pistol but possible to buy something that might be more dangerous. I shall endeavour to close any loopholes.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and her willingness to look again at the workings of the clause. On that basis we shall return to it later in the Bill’s progress, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Supplying imitation firearms to minors

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: We note that our amendment suggested by the trading standards authorities was not selected by the Chairman—for good reasons, I am sure. The amendment was a response to concern about the way in which clause 32 would amend the Firearms Act 1968. The defence set out in subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new section 24A is flawed and out of  date. The existing language has been shown to be unenforceable in practice. It is therefore preferable that the Government should adopt the standard approach to those defences, as set out in section 146 of the Licensing Act 2003.
The amendment would also have provided for exemption of children used in test purchasing by trading standards. We believed that that was a sensible inclusion to prevent the clause from having unintended victims, as well as to ensure that the relevant laws could be tested and enforced properly.

Hazel Blears: The clause is an important part of the package of measures in the Bill to tackle the misuse of imitation firearms. Clause 30 will ban the manufacture, importation and sale of realistic imitation firearms, but there will be exemptions. Those will be tightly drawn to prevent misuse, but as an added precaution the exempt items cannot be purchased by young people.
There is a risk that some imitations that do not fall within the realistic appearance test under clause 30 will still be purchased and misused by young people. The clause will prevent that by making it an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under 18, or for a person under 18 to purchase one. The age limit of 18 is consistent with that proposed for air weapons and knives.
We accept that the measure will apply to some children’s toys that will not be sufficiently realistic to be banned altogether, but which nevertheless have the appearance of firearms. In other words, the definition of an imitation firearm in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 will continue to apply, in addition to the more specific definition of a realistic imitation firearm in clause 30(8). In those cases it is right that a parent or other adult should make the purchase.
We recognise that it will sometimes be difficult for retailers to tell a purchaser’s age. In such cases we would expect retailers to request proof of age, but that is not always foolproof. That is why we have included a defence for a retailer, of showing that he had reasonable grounds for believing that a purchaser was 18 or over. That is in line with current provisions on the sale of air weapons. We believe that restricting young people’s access to imitation firearms in that way will further reduce misuse.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Sale etc. of knives and other weapons

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in clause 34, page 35, line 33, leave out subsection (2).

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 34, page 35, line 34, leave out ‘eighteen’ and insert ‘nineteen’.
No. 159, in clause 34, page 36, line 11, at end insert—
‘(d)for the purposes of official battle re-enactments and similar events including veterans’ fairs.’.
Government amendment No. 303
No. 56, in clause 34, page 36, line 19, at end insert—
‘(6)A court shall, on a person’s first conviction for an offence under Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Placed article), pass a minimum custodial sentence of 3 months, unless exceptional circumstances exist in relation to the offence or the offender which justify its not so doing.’.
Government amendment No. 106

Lynne Featherstone: The lead amendment was tabled to establish the Government’s thinking on the clause. We strongly support the intention to strengthen the restrictions and prohibitions on knives. The increase in knife crime and the number of people turning to knives as it becomes more difficult to use guns for crime is concerning. Only last weekend in Birmingham, tragically, someone was murdered with a knife and someone with a gun. I do not make a distinction—death is death—and I very much welcome the clause. However, we are concerned as to how it will work. How can the law on restricting sales to under-18s be enforced? There is a difficulty with the logic that one can get married at 16, yet not be able to buy a knife for the kitchen until one is 18. The Police Federation says that there is no safe way of policing the measure unless the police stand outside virtually every store that sells knives. Perhaps there should be a specification or description of prohibited knives to make policing a realistic prospect.
The Police Federation is also concerned that a person under the age of 18 may ask a third party to buy them a knife. Should there be an offence of giving a knife to someone who is under 18, or of accepting a knife as a present from an older person? Will that put people in the predicament of having to decide whether that person is responsible? Those are our concerns about the clause. I reiterate that we totally support the idea of raising the age to 18, but are unsure how the Government propose to make the measure work.
Amendment No. 159 raises the re-enactment issue again. People who take part in battle re-enactments and veterans’ fairs tell me that they are not just a hobby, but are educational, and they believe that they should be exempted. Surely, the Government do not intend hinder such events.

Humfrey Malins: I shall focus entirely on amendment No. 56, and have nothing to say on amendment No. 67, which is also in my name. On the amendment paper, there is a slight misprint in the amendment, which would require a minimum custodial sentence for the offence of carrying a bladed article. It reads:
“A court shall, on a person’s first conviction for an offence under Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Placed article)”—
that should read, “Bladed article”—
“pass a minimum custodial sentence of 3 months, unless exceptional circumstances exist in relation to the offence or the offender which justify its not so doing.”
I want to give the Committee a terrifying statistic. The Government have confirmed in a parliamentary answer that no fewer than 20,000 children aged 11 to 16 admit to having carried a knife in school for offensive purposes, and no fewer than 40,000 children aged 11 to 16 admit to having carried in school a knife for so-called defensive purposes—that is 60,000 children.
The culture of the blade is on the up, and I am afraid that it is becoming firmly rooted in our society. Knife crime has rocketed in the past eight years. Recent reports show that knife crime in England and Wales has leapt by as much as 90 per cent. in two years in some areas.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 show nearly 25,000 knife crimes last year logged by the 30 police forces that supplied the figures. The highest rise in knife crime was recorded by Nottinghamshire police. There, offences involving blades went up from 338 in 2002 to 650 last year, a rise of some 92 per cent. Muggings involving the use of a knife or blade have shot up. I quote the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Tony Melville, who is the spokesman on knife crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers:
“Lots and lots of people are carrying knives in public places. In many parts of society it now seems to be a credible and normal thing to carry a knife.”
Doctors report a marked increase in the number of patients attending casualty with stab wounds. I sit as a recorder in the Crown Court, and as a district judge in magistrates courts, and day after day I see around me young people charged with offences under section 139 of having a bladed article. It is almost as if that is the norm, and nobody understands that it is wrong.
That sort of crime is not only on the increase, but it is deadly serious and must be stamped out. One has only to listen, as I have done, to witnesses giving evidence in cases in which a knife has been taken out and waved at them in public. They recount the sheer terror, and each of us can imagine that. It has never happened to me, but I venture to suggest that those to whom it has happened will never forget the experience of terror.
That is the background. The amount of crime involving knives and bladed articles, or having a bladed article in a public place, goes up and up, but the number of prosecutions is abysmally low, as are the levels of detection in relation to knife crime. As I have said so many times in this Committee and elsewhere, passing laws is one thing, but enforcing the existing law is vitally important. Sadly the courts are not passing stiff enough sentences. We are forgetting the importance of deterrence in our criminal justice system, and relying too much on other—no doubt worthy—approaches.
Let me illustrate what I mean about enforcement of existing law by reference to some parliamentary questions that I have asked, and the answers that I have received in the past six months or so. All the time, let us keep in mind the horrifying statistic that I gave some moments ago—a minimum of 60,000 children carrying knives in school for offensive or defensive purposes.
There is a very important section of our statutes involving people who market knives. The Knives Act 1997, which relates to the marketing of knives and the offence of so doing, is a serious Act of Parliament. I am talking about marketing extremely nasty knives. I asked the Home Secretary how many people had been charged with or convicted of offences relating to the unlawful marketing of knives and of an offence of publication in connection with the marketing of knives under sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997. The answer was that in the last five years for which figures were available, only 18 persons have been charged with the unlawful marketing of knives under section 1 of that Act, and only five convicted.
What about prosecutions under section 2 of the Knives Act, which states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he publishes any written, pictorial or other material in connection with the marketing of any knife and that material—
(a)indicates, or suggests, that the knife is suitable for combat”?
In the last five years for which figures are available, only one person has been prosecuted under that provision, and even he—it might have been she—was found not guilty. There lies a statute which has not properly been used.
What about the offence of selling to a person under the age of 16 a knife, knife blade, razor blade, axe and any other article that has a blade that is sharply pointed and made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person? What a heinous offence. It is the sort of thing that Governments often rail at. In the last five years for which figures are available, only 39 persons have been proceeded against under that statute. So much of this is about proper enforcement of the existing law.
I moved on to convictions under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Remembering the vast number of offences involving the use of knife-bladed articles, I asked how many persons had been prosecuted for having an article with a blade or point in a public place in the last five years for which figures are available. There were many more prosecutions for such offences but my point is about how the court disposed of those prosecutions.
I agree with most district judges that having a bladed article in a public place is a very serious offence, which must be stamped out. One would expect the courts to take a seriously robust attitude to these offences. In 2003, 6,800 persons were proceeded against, of whom 5,300 were found guilty. The figures for the previous four years were approximately 5,000 a year for two of those years and 3,500 for another two years. I venture to ask the Committee whether it would like to suggest what percentage of those convicted went into custody. The answer is somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. only. The rest were simply sent away from court with a sentence that permitted them to carry on taking knives around in public places.
We need to take a much stronger attitude towards the carrying of knives, which is why my amendment would impose a minimum sentence of three months on  anyone who is caught with a bladed article in public, subject to the usual defences and there is a defence, so ’an innocent explanation is entirely proper. I am thinking of the message that we should be sending to the young people out in the streets who think that going tooled-up with a knife is a great idea and that going into school with a knife is a great idea. I am old-fashioned enough to say that I am depressed with the kind of society in which we live at the moment where too little emphasis is placed on deterrent and far too much on education.
Were you as shocked as I was, Mr Forth, to read the story—the Minister will no doubt tell us of the background—of a council that was forced to pay £11,000 to a boy expelled for taking a knife to school? Greenwich was ordered to apologise to the teenager and pay his mother £5,000 compensation for anxiety and uncertainty, plus £6,000 for home tuition of her son. Teachers reacted with fury: the union said that the boy should have been prosecuted for carrying a blade. The pay-out was ordered by the Local Government Ombudsman. It makes one scratch one’s head in sheer disbelief, if this story is true—is it true that a boy with a knife in school finds himself going to the ombudsman with his parents and getting some taxpayers’ money for the privilege?
Another aspect that troubles me is the approach taken by the Government, who should focus much more on getting the police on the streets where such offences are taking place and arresting, charging and securing convictions in appropriate cases with the courts reacting more strongly. A parliamentary question was asked a year or two ago by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in her then capacity as a Home Office Minister—I like this one:
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to tackle the problem of assaults on children involving knives”,
which is a pretty fair question. Listen to the answer from the Government—I do not suppose that we would disagree with the first sentence:
“It is unacceptable for young people to carry knives and the Government take their responsibility for public safety in this area extremely seriously. There is a range of legislation and police powers in place aimed at preventing the possession or use of knives and offensive weapons and this is kept under constant review to ensure it is comprehensive and effective”—
Most of the Committee will be asleep already—
“It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying”—[interruption.]
All right, perhaps is the quotation is a little long.

Hazel Blears: Yes it is.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister says it is, but when is something going to be done about the problem that is happening on the streets at the moment, in terms of proper enforcement, arrest, conviction and sentence? Where has the old issue of deterrence gone? It seems to  be disappearing fast—things are always someone else’s fault. The answer continued:
“It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying and the Home Office funds and operates a number of community-based initiatives aimed at encouraging good citizenship and turning vulnerable young people away from crime.—[Official Report, 3 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 301W.]
So said the then Minister. Well, do we all feel safer as a result of that?

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is that the Government are trying to give a clear message that carrying knives is wrong; yet that message is mixed by the fact that the result of doing so is inevitably simply a slap on the wrist?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend typically makes a good point. It is all very well to have the headline, “Carrying knives is wrong,” and it is all very well to say that we are trying to educate the public, but go back to the facts of life. The youth justice survey established clearly that in our schools tens of thousands are wilfully flouting the law. There will be a debate on that issue under the next clause. I have purposely mentioned schools very little.
We face a culture in which there is no guilt and no one says, “That is wrong. You will be punished”. That is the dangerous slope along which we are sliding. It is time for us in Parliament, not to grab the headlines, but to say that we have existing law at the moment and why on earth is it not being enforced? There is a compelling case for a minimum sentence for this appalling offence. The Government seek to have minimum sentences and the precedent is well established elsewhere.
However, if the Minister cannot satisfy me that there is no case, I believe that I speak on behalf of the vast majority of law-abiding people who want to feel safe when they walk our streets at night. They will feel a lot safer if they know that the person with a bladed article will be sent to jail for a first offence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Our duty in this House should be more to the law-abiding than to the law breakers.

John Thurso: I come back to amendment No. 158, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green moved. My question concerns those who are training in the hotel industry, as I did. One of the first things that one is asked to do when one works in the kitchens is to purchase a set of knives. Typically, that will include a long-bladed knife for chopping, a boning knife and a paring knife. Each individually would fall within the scope of the legislation. What provision will there be for those entering apprenticeships or studying for qualifications at colleges to continue to practise their trade without falling foul of the law?

Hazel Blears: I shall resist amendments Nos. 158 and 67, because they seek to lower the age to 16. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green seeks to lower to 16 the age at which knives can be bought. I appreciate that her aim is to probe as to how the law would work in practice, but her amendment reduces  the age to 16. It should be an offence to sell a knife to a young person aged under 18. That would be practical to enforce; it is the same age limit as for alcohol and the age at which people can obtain a credit card. Requiring payment by credit card is one way in which respectable sellers of knives by mail order ensure that customers are aged 18 or over. That is an important cut-off point.
The measure should not unduly interfere with the legitimate use of knives. The sale is an offence rather than the use. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has raised the issue of people who undertake catering courses and trainee chefs. People in such circumstances will have to get somebody aged over 18 to buy their initial set of tools for them. That is not an onerous requirement—presumably tutors already play a role in advising young chefs about which knives are best to purchase, so I do not think that that represents a practical impediment.
We are trying to ensure that young people under 18 cannot buy knives. That sends out a clear message. Significant problems are caused by young people who carry knives, and it is important to have a range of measures to address them. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made much of enforcement, yet he will note from the letter that I sent him last week that the figures on prosecutions for people carrying a blade or point in a public place are high—6,589 people were prosecuted in 2002 and 6,839 in 2003 for having a bladed article in a public place, of whom more than 5,000 were found guilty. The police do not turn a blind eye to the fact that people carry blades in public.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross takes issue with the sentences imposed by the courts. I shall come to those in detail shortly. However, I do not think that he can fairly say that the laws are not being enforced when more than 6,000 prosecutions have taken place.

Humfrey Malins: That is 6,000 prosecutions out of how many offences?

Hazel Blears: Goodness me; the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. In order for there to be an offence, there has to be a prosecution and a conviction. From more than 6,000 prosecutions, 5,281 resulted in conviction.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister has missed my point. If 60,000 children carry a knife in school, and only seven or eight prosecutions take place against them, that is low. I suggest—can she say the contrary?—that the 6,000 prosecutions under section 139 represent the tip of the iceberg of the number of people who are offending.

Hazel Blears: I do not accept the phrase “tip of the iceberg”. The figure of 6,000 shows that there is a pretty robust enforcement policy and that the police are out there on the streets trying to ensure that young people are not carrying knives. Inevitably, the numbers who engage in this activity will be greater than those who are prosecuted, convicted and  sentenced, but I was seeking to make the point that 6,000 prosecutions shows that the police are not ignoring the problem.

Dawn Butler: Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the next clause in the Bill, which talks about enforcement in schools and the ability to search pupils in schools, will probably bring about an increase in the number of prosecutions and arrests of pupils carrying knives?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That will be an extra power that head teachers, schools and the police will use to bear down on knife crime and to make our communities safer.
I shall resist amendment No. 159. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wants to put a defence into the Bill for use at official battle re-enactments and similar events, including veterans’ fairs. The weapons currently listed on the offensive weapons order are dangerous weapons and the Government consider any exemptions carefully. I have not received representations from those taking part in battle re-enactments that the current law presents them with problems.
However, I can understand the concern of those groups that weapons that are used in battle re-enactments may be added to the order. In that case, we would consider a defence or exemption for the specific weapon. The law is currently inflexible and Government amendment No. 303 should rectify that. We need flexibility when adding weapons to the order, so that those who are involved in their legitimate manufacture, sale or hire are not caught. What “legitimate” means will vary from weapon to weapon, so any defence or exemption could be specific to the weapon in question.
Government amendment No. 303 is framed in such a way that the defence or exemption could apply only to some, and not to other, offensive weapons listed in the order. It could apply for battle re-enactments. Regulations will follow the affirmative resolution procedure, so Members of both Houses will be able to debate any such proposed defences or exemptions. We will consult before adding further items to the offensive weapons order.
We are currently considering adding Samurai swords to the offensive weapons order. Government amendment No. 303 would allow us to ban their sale, manufacture and hire, except in certain cases such as legitimate martial arts operations. Police officers in my constituency have told me time and again that the damage inflicted by people using Samurai swords in a criminal way is absolutely horrendous. One of my chief superintendents told me that it is almost a rite of passage for some people when they enter the criminal fraternity to get a Samurai sword. I recognise that, if we add such swords to the offensive weapons order, there needs to be flexibility to ensure that legitimate users are not unduly penalised.
I come to amendment No. 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. I welcome him back to his place, but it is perhaps a little unfortunate that he was not present when we had the debate on minimum mandatory sentences for gun offences that was led by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. There appears to be some confusion between those two hon. Gentlemen about their approach to this important matter of principle. We have a mandatory prison sentence for people who possess guns. We wanted to extend that to people who use children to hide their guns and weapons. We thought that that was the correct thing to do. That provision was opposed in the most strenuous terms by the hon. Member for Huntingdon on the basis of principle: he said that it was interfering with judicial discretion. In his role as a part-time recorder, I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking holds the principles of judicial discretion close to his heart. We were castigated by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who said we were taking an authoritarian, illiberal approach by shackling and fettering the judges’ power to make decisions. We were denounced in the most extreme terms.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister is happy to have a mandatory sentence for the possession of firearms. Given the damage that is done by knives, why is the same principle not accepted in that regard?

Hazel Blears: Indeed. I shall come to that matter.
I had thought that the Opposition opposed mandatory minimum sentences in principle—but now I am not quite so sure. The Government have never said that we oppose—or propose—mandatory sentences as a matter of principle. We have said that we will use them when we think that it is appropriate. I will give some reasons why, particularly in relation to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Woking, we do not consider them to be appropriate in this case. However, there seems to be a fundamental and serious disagreement on those matters between the hon. Members for Woking and for Huntingdon.
There are some technical deficiencies in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. It does not consider the position after custody plus is brought in, when a three-month sentence will not be a possibility. The minimum custodial sentence will be 28 weeks. It does not consider whether, or how, juveniles would be included. The minimum custodial sentence for a juvenile is a four-month detention and training order, so the three-month sentence would not apply.
I also have some more general concerns about the amendment. Mandatory prison sentences tend to be reserved for very serious offences. I do not say that carrying a blade in a public place is not a serious offence, but I believe that in this case mandatory custody would escalate a great many offenders, many of whom are juveniles, into the prison system. I do not want that to happen.
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 20,000 children. I do not accept that we would be prosecuting 20,000 children, but we should consider whether, in the case of a first offence for someone—particularly for  some of the children to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who pleads guilty to having possession, they should automatically receive a mandatory prison sentence.

Humfrey Malins: Will the Minister then comment on an authoritative report in relation to the then Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who apparently was clear that he wanted to introduce a minimum sentence for carrying a knife on the street? Can the Minister deny that? I may be wrong about that, but she will have spoken to the former Home Secretary, and I should like to know what his views were. Has he expressed that view?

Hazel Blears: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that we published in our election manifesto a commitment that we would consult on introducing more serious sentences for people who commit serious crimes using knives. That is a matter of public record, and that is what we mean to do.
 It is our view that in this case we should be looking to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which we set up last year, to devise the guidelines. The council is currently looking at the issue of seriousness, and its guidelines on seriousness treat use of a weapon as an aggravating factor. We expect the council’s new guidance on violent crime to reiterate that, if a weapon is used, that increases the seriousness of the violent crime, and to prescribe robust penalties for those who commit violent crimes using a knife.
The council published its consultation paper on offences against the person last month, and we expect a guideline to be published next year.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am just having a look back at clause 24, entitled, “Using someone to mind a weapon”. I think that its provisions include knives. Minding a weapon does not just refer to guns; it could include getting someone to mind a knife.
If an under-18-year-old gets someone to mind their knife, I think that there is a mandatory sentence of not less than three years. I understand the Minister to say that there should be discretion in the sentence if an under-18-year-old holds the knife himself, but not if he gives someone else the knife to hold for him.

Hazel Blears: What I meant to say is that, when someone is in possession of a knife, that should be a matter for the courts, guided by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. There is no mandatory sentence under clause 24 for knives. There is a maximum sentence. Clause 25(2) states that, where the dangerous weapon in respect of which the offence was committed is a knife or bladed weapon,
“the offender shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine, or to both.”
That is the maximum sentence, and I hope that that is of assistance to the hon. Gentleman.

Jonathan Djanogly: No.

Hazel Blears: It is a maximum sentence, rather than a mandatory sentence.

Eric Forth: Order. Can the Committee maintain some order? I hope that we are not going to lapse into casual conversation. The Minister is on her feet. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they must do so properly.

Mark Prisk: I think that it might help the Minister as she gropes back through the Bill to try to find the answer if I ask whether I am right to say that line 19 refers to a minimum sentence of not less than three years? Is that not mandatory?

Hazel Blears: Which clause is the hon. Gentleman on?

Mark Prisk: If I may proceed with that intervention for the benefit of the Minister, we are dealing with clause 25(5), line 19, on page 27.

Hazel Blears: I can only reiterate what I have said. That relates to prohibited firearms and not to blades. The provision on sentences for blades is in clause 25(2) and sets a maximum prison sentence of four years. The hon. Gentleman is referring to entirely the wrong provision and I hope that that clarification is of assistance to him. [Interruption.]

Stephen McCabe: I think that that was an apology.

Hazel Blears: I think so. I entirely accept the apology from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford.
I do not have anything to add. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will prescribe robust penalties for those who commit violent crimes using a knife. We think that that is the appropriate way forward and I have to say that I would love to be present at the discussion between the hon. Members for Woking and for Huntingdon when they try to reconcile their different positions on mandatory sentences.

Stephen Pound: I think the knives will be out. [Laughter.]

Hazel Blears: Government amendment No. 106 is a technical amendment that deals with the repeal consequential to Government amendment No. 303.

Lynne Featherstone: I was simply seeking reassurance from the Minister that raising the age to 18, which I heartily support, would be sustainable in law. I still have some concerns about the ability of shopkeepers to administer that with an ID scheme such as that used for alcohol, and I also still have some concerns about the example of cooking knives raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The Minister suggested that under-18s could use a third person to help them to purchase such knives. If, God forbid, that person were to commit an offence with that knife, would the third party have some responsibility? I have some concerns,  to which I want to give further thought, but for the time being I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 303, in clause 34, page 36, line 16, at end insert—
‘(11D)The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—
(a)provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence under subsection (1) above or from the prohibition in subsection (4) above; and
(b)provide for it to be a defence in proceedings for such an offence, or for an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, to show the matters specified or described in the regulations.
(11E)A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I just want to express publicly my disappointment with the Minister’s reply. There was nothing in what she said in response to my speech on knives, which reflected the real concern of many members of the public about the vast increase in knife crime. Nor was there a message from her to the judges to deal with the crime more harshly. I found her response a little self-satisfied, and I am very sorry to have heard it.
As for the Minister’s attempts to draw a distinction between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, she rightly points out that I was not in Committee at the appropriate stage, although that was not through any lack of courtesy on my part. I understand that my hon. Friend outlined his arguments with great skill. The purpose of my amendment was to draw the Government’s attention to the disgraceful situation with regard to knives, and to send a message to the Government that it is time that they recognised it, rather than sat back and felt complacent about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Power to search school pupils for weapons

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 35, page 36, line 38, leave out ‘the search’ and insert ‘searches’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 102.
No. 58, in clause 35, page 37, line 17, leave out from ‘includes’ to end of line 17 and insert
‘all clothing save underwear and shoes’.
Government new clause 7—Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons.
New clause 10—Power to search for weapons—
‘After Section 85A of the Further and Higher Education Act, as amended, insert—
“85AAPower of members of staff to search students, etc. for weapons
(1)A member of the staff of a college of further education who has reasonable grounds for believing that a student at the college may have with him or in his possessions—
(a)an article to which section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (knives and blades etc.), or
(b)an offensive weapon (within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953),
may search that student or his possessions for such articles and weapons.
(2)A search under this section may be carried out only where—
(a)the member of the staff and the student are on the premises of the college; or
(b)they are elsewhere and the member of the staff has lawful control or charge of the student.
(3)A person may carry out a search under this section only if—
(a)he is the principal of the college; or
(b)he has been authorised by the principal to carry out the search.
(4)A person who carries out a search of a student under this section—
(a)may not require the student to remove any clothing other than outer clothing;
(b)must be of the same sex as the student; and
(c)may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the student.
(5)A student’s possessions may not be searched under this section except in his presence and in the presence of a person (in addition to the person carrying out the search) who is aged 18 or over.
(6)If a person who, in the course of a search under this section, finds—
(a)anything which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting falls within subsection (1) (a) or (b), or
(b)any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence
he may seize and retain it.
(7)A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for exercising that power.
(8)An authorisation for the purposes of subsection (3) (b) may be given either in relation to a particular search or generally in relation to searches under this section or to a particular description of such searches.
(9)In this section—‘outer clothing’ includes an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat; ‘possessions’, in relation to a student of a college, includes any goods over which he has or appears to have control.
(10)The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any powers exercisable by the member of the staff in question apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting such powers.”.’.

Humfrey Malins: I shall speak very briefly to my two amendments, which are both probing. There is much to be said about the clause in a clause stand part debate.
Clause 35(3) rather implies that specific permission needs to be obtained separately for each search. That might be the case, but I am anxious that at least one member of staff should be authorised to carry out searches generally rather than authorised to carry out a particular search in a particular case, hence my amendment No. 57.
Amendment No. 58 relates to the issue of clothing. In effect, subsection (9) limits what clothing a searcher can require someone to take off. I asked the Minister how she came to define outer clothing as only
“an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat.”
The subsection does not refer to shoes, but if the search is to be at all worth while, more clothes should necessarily be removed in order to ensure the efficiency of the search.
I pause only to say that we debated a similar measure on clothing in a Bill that is being considered along the Corridor. I apologise for erring from our debate slightly, but that measure relates to the ability of certain immigration officers and private sector employees employed by the Home Office to require certain passengers to remove certain items of clothing. It was most interesting that the list of items of clothing in that Bill—the attempt was to limit it—is not exactly the same as it is in this one, which caused a little consternation among the civil service and Home Office advisers next door and should cause a little consternation in this Committee, since the purpose behind each provision appears to be identical.

Eric Forth: Cross-dressing.

Humfrey Malins: Indeed. Will the Minister say a little more about searches and why she selected an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat in particular? Surely there is a good argument for extending that list in order to have a more efficient search.

Lynne Featherstone: I rise to speak to new clause 10 and to ask that the principles that the Government want to apply in schools be applied in further education colleges. The Association of Colleges has consulted its members, who strongly support giving college principals and nominated members of staff a very similar power.
I emphasise that more 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time study at further education colleges than there are at school. There are 701,000 at further education colleges compared with 345,000 at school, and 120,000 14 to 16-year-olds now choose to study vocational courses at college. I am worried that not giving colleges an equivalent power will send out the signal that only those studying at school need similar protection.
There is a precedent in that the Education Act 2002 extended the power given to schools relating to nuisance or disturbance on educational premises to further education establishments. That was achieved by inserting a new clause in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The new clause seeks to persuade the Government to do likewise in the Bill.

Hazel Blears: I shall resist amendment No. 57. It is not necessary, because subsection (8) provides that authorisation may be given by the head teacher to a particular search or to searches in general.
Until now, school staff have had no specific power to retain weapons held illegally by pupils and taken from them at school. Clause 35 creates the power to retain such items, and Government amendment No. 102 will clarify the procedure for their disposal.
If school staff retain seized weapons indefinitely, pupils or parents might ask the school to return them. School staff are unlikely to be expert in deciding whether it would be legal or safe to return such items—we do not want to put teachers into that position—so the amendment requires school staff to pass seized items to the police as soon as reasonably practicable. There are two benefits. It relieves schools of the responsibility to consider whether to return seized items, and it brings the item under long-established police procedures for determining whether or how to return items to their owners.
I turn to amendment No. 58, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. The Government recognise that carrying knives and the use of knives is a serious issue. Knives threaten many people, but the carrying of knives in schools is not widespread. It is not a matter of course for all school pupils. Only a small minority of pupils have carried knives, and the Government have responded to the problem by creating the power of search for head teachers and others. The Government take the matter extremely seriously, but we want to be proportionate in the powers that we provide to help deal with it.
Subsection (4)(a) provides that the search
“may not require the pupil to remove any clothing other than outer clothing”
As the hon. Member for Woking said, outer clothing is specified as coat, jacket, gloves and hat. It is a non-exhaustive list, but the amendment proposes that a pupil should have to remove all clothing “save underwear and shoes”. Requiring a pupil to remove a shirt, trousers or skirt should be unnecessary when carrying out most searches, although not necessarily in all cases, but it might be disproportionately intrusive. We need to get the balance right between protecting the privacy of the pupil and searching them for weapons that could be damaging to other innocent pupils. We also want to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety when members of staff carry out such searches.
The hon. Gentleman says that it may be necessary in some circumstances to extend the list beyond the outer coat, jacket, gloves and hat, but it is a non-exhaustive list and other items can be added to it. I therefore ask him not to press the amendment.
Government new clause 7 gives staff the power to search persons in attendance centres. People who are the subject of attendance centre orders or other community orders are required to attend such centres, usually for two or three hours on alternate Saturdays. They offer a range of activities in structured and disciplined groups, and help develop personal responsibility and self-discipline. They are the sort of  centres that I am sure the hon. Member for Woking would welcome. They also offer training in a range of basic skills. They combine education and support skills with punishment. Again, it is about getting the balance right.
School premises are often the ideal venue for attendance centres, as they have the facilities required. It is important that we provide the necessary protection to those teaching staff and pupils who may be confronted by someone carrying a knife or other weapon while the school is being used as an attendance centre. The new clause provides the same protection to staff at attendance centres who deal with offenders, some of whom may have a history of violence. Again, it is right that they should have the equivalent protection to that which we are introducing for schools.
Staff should have the power to search when they have reasonable grounds. In one case, they were found outside the centre with firearms. That has resulted in calls from staff for the power to search, and we must respond to those calls, so that staff are given the necessary powers and protection.
Again, there are safeguards in the Bill. Searches can take place only on the centre premises, two staff must be present and searches can be made only by a person of the same sex. We have consulted officers in charge of attendance centres, the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams, all of which recognise the valid reasons why we have introduced this power.
New clause 10 would give members of staff at a college of further education the power to search students for weapons. It says that searches should be conducted by the principal, or by someone authorised by the principal, and specifies how searches should be carried out. Clause 35 focuses on schools because, although they are generally very safe places, and most pupils never carry knives, we are aware of a small number of incidents. That is why we have been working with head teachers and the police to see what could be done, and we now have a broad spread of support for the powers in schools. That is what we concentrated on, because that is where the majority of the problems appeared to be.
I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the new clause is welcome and I want to give further consideration to extending the search provisions. One reason why we would like to consider the proposal further is that increasing numbers of pupils are attending courses at colleges, under arrangements made by their schools as part of their compulsory education. Increasingly, a pupil at secondary school might spend one or two days a week in a further education establishment, so the boundaries between schools and further education colleges are becoming more blurred as we develop a more practical and vocational curriculum for some of our students. It might therefore be appropriate to extend the provisions in the way suggested to protect school students and further education students.
I also want to take the opportunity to consult principals of further education colleges, in the same way that we have consulted head teachers of schools, before introducing an amendment on the issue on Report. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

Humfrey Malins: I have heard what the Minister has said and I have some observations to make on a different issue in the clause stand part debate, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 102, in clause 35, page 37, line 11, at end insert—
‘()A person who seizes anything under subsection (6) must deliver it to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable.
()The Police (Property) Act 1897 (disposal of property in the possession of the police) shall apply to property which has come into the possession of a police constable under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.’. — [Hazel Blears.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I repeat a statistic that I gave a moment ago. Earlier this year, I asked
“on how many occasions in the last 12 months a pupil at a state secondary school in England has been found to be in possession of a weapon on school premises.”
The ministerial answer was:
“A Youth Justice Board survey in 2004 showed that 1 per cent. of age 11–16 pupils in England and Wales had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for ‘defensive’ reasons.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 592W.]
If those figures are correct, I calculate, by reference to the number of school children of that age, that approximately 60,000 offences have taken place.

Hazel Blears: I have said that we are discussing a small minority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, based on those figures, 98 per cent. of children in schools are not carrying weapons?

Humfrey Malins: What an astonishing response from the Minister. She is asking me to applaud her because 98 per cent. of pupils do not carry weapons, when approximately 60,000 children do. I am not going to applaud that, because that is 60,000 children too many and there are no grounds for complacency.
While I am at it, will the Minister respond to the absurd story about the local government ombudsman forcing a council to pay £11,000 to a boy who was expelled for taking a knife to school? Has she heard that report? The law exists to punish people for taking knives on to school premises. Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for a person to have a bladed article—a knife or other such weapon—on school premises. The same Act also makes it an offence to have an offensive weapon on  school premises, and constables have the power to enter schools to make searches and deal with miscreants.
The Minister accepts that tens of thousands of children are offending, so she will no doubt be extremely proud to know how many children have been prosecuted for such offences in the past few years. There were 10 prosecutions under the 1988 Act for having an article with a blade or point on school premises in 1999; 19 prosecutions occurred in 2000, when the rate shot up dramatically; 25 prosecutions occurred in 2001; 22 prosecutions occurred in 2002; and 25 prosecutions occurred in 2003. Unless I am completely wrong, that means that in any one year proceedings are launched against 25 people only for a serious criminal offence that is currently being committed by 60,000 children a year. That is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it beggars belief that the education authorities are not taking a more proactive view and attitude toward children in schools. How many of those prosecuted were taken into custody? A total of nine people in the past five years. The situation is appalling, and the Minister cannot escape the fact that although the offence is prevalent, no one is being prosecuted for it. Why are there only 10 or 20 prosecutions a year, when 60,000 people are committing the offence? The Minister cannot get round that absurdity.
The Minister apparently thinks that everything will be sorted out by giving teachers more powers to search. Is she saying that no investigations or prosecutions have taken place in the past few years because teachers have not had those powers? That argument is hopelessly wrong, because teachers have always been able to send for a policeman. They could say, “Come on to the premises, because I think that that person is carrying a knife.” The Minister cannot answer the question why that does not happen. I hope that clause 35 will make a difference, but I wonder whether it will. If education authorities, schools and the Government do not have the will to enforce the current law, can any of us believe that the power to search will suddenly change the culture? I think not.
One or two people have expressed certain concerns that the Minister should address. The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers gave the proposals a cautious welcome and added:
“Although it is helpful to have clarity from the education secretary on the powers given to headteachers, subsequent questions have to be addressed. If a young person allegedly carrying a weapon is searched without consent, this may exacerbate an already difficult situation.”
Frankly, I should not need a young person’s consent to search them, if I suspect them of carrying a knife in school. The general secretary continued:
“We would not wish the right of a headteacher to undertake a search to be transformed into an expectation, whether contractual or otherwise, which would oblige our members to take on searches of pupils. This is an issue that has to be carefully managed”.
Will the Minister comment on those slight worries?
Concerns have also been expressed that teachers or others who exercise the new power might be sued for invasion of privacy. That concern reflects the world we live in, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
We cannot possibly vote against the clause standing part of the Bill, but I venture to suggest that unless the education world and the Government change their attitude and seriously enforce the offence of having a knife on school premises, which has been on the statute book for years and has, as I have said, been enforced sparingly, the clause will not make the difference that the Minister wants.

Mark Prisk: I shall not detain the Committee for too long, but I want to echo the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking about the Government’s worrying habit of passing new laws when the established laws are not being enforced in the first place. I suspect that I share the concern of many hon. Members that such a power is felt to be necessary, but we must face the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
I shall comment on two aspects of the clause, and I shall be grateful if the Minister responds. The problem with passing legislation that we do not scrutinise properly—let alone enforce properly—is that we may allow it to go through without thinking through how it will actually work. New section 550AA refers to the way in which a search is carried out, and subsection (4) refers to a person who carries out a search of a pupil. Paragraph (a) refers to the removal of clothing and the fact that the person undertaking the search must be the same sex as the pupil. However, paragraph (c) states that the condition of the clause is that the person who carries out a search of a pupil under that section
“may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the pupil.”
I understand the logic behind ensuring that someone who carries out a search on a minor or somebody aged 18 is of the same sex as the person being searched, but there is the danger of being too prescriptive. When we visit primary schools, most of us are acutely aware of the lack of male teachers, and many primary schools are largely populated by women—the problem is sharp in secondary schools, but it is not as acute as in primary schools—which gives rise to the practical issue that it may be almost impossible to conduct such a search. Given the Government’s preference for delegated legislation, will the Minister explain why that requirement has been specified in the Bill?
I would welcome greater clarity on subsection (6) of new section 550AA, which concerns what is found by the person conducting the search. Paragraph (b) specifies that
“any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence.”
Will the Minister give us examples of something encompassed by that definition and something excluded by it? That is not a matter of semantics, and I want to help those who follow our deliberations to understand the scope of the law that we seek to make. I often feel that we fear to ask a question when we see such phrases in Committee, because the answer might be self-evident, but if we do not ask such questions, who will? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer.

Lynne Featherstone: Knife crime and the carrying of knives in school is now so prevalent that the situation has changed. I hope that giving the power to teachers, which is slightly less formal than calling a police officer, will encourage teachers to make searches in cases in which they think that, although a child is not necessarily going to use a knife, the carrying should stop there and then. The alternative is even worse—metal detectors in schools, which they have in America. I want teachers to have the power to create and change the culture, rather than suspecting all who go into schools and turning our children into criminals. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that further education colleges will also be considered.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has asked who would constitute a third party and whether not being able to find two men on the premises at the same time might prove to be a practical issue. The third party does not have to be another teacher, and they could be a caretaker or another member of staff.
Clause 35 introduces a power, not a duty. If a member of staff feels that they do not have the necessary staff on the premises to conduct a search, or if they feel unsafe or are not confident about exercising the power—they may not have had the right degree of training—a police officer can be called to carry out the search.
It is important that another adult is present to ensure the safety of the person who conducts the search. Issues of propriety also arise, and it is important to have a witness to a search, particularly if an individual’s clothing is removed.
I accept that it may be difficult to find two men in a primary school, which is a genuine concern. If it were impossible to have two men present, the member of staff concerned would have the option of calling a police officer.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the items that could be seized, and drugs immediately come to mind. If while conducting a search for knives, illegal drugs were found, they should be seized and retained or disposed of in accordance with the Bill.

Sally Keeble: May I bring to the Minister’s attention a case that was reported in the newspapers concerning a child who was very badly slashed by a pencil-sharpener blade? Young people can obtain items at school that may seem benign, but that can be used ferociously to attack other children.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has raised the very disturbing case in Sheffield, which shows how innocuous items can sometimes inflict extensive damage. That poor child has a huge number of stitches in her face, and let us hope that she is not permanently scarred.

Mark Prisk: Is the Minister saying that an item that is innocuous, but that has clearly been misused falls within the definition in new section 550AA(1)? I want  to identify the scope of the power, because those who seek to apply a search will not use the power if the law is not clear for fear of being sued by difficult parents.

Hazel Blears: In that case, I am not sure whether the blade was carried on its own or whether the pencil sharpener was dismantled in class and then converted. It would be difficult for us to provide a power to search for and confiscate pencil sharpeners in school.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the provision. Children and young people follow fashions in schools, and they will get their hands on items that the Minister cannot specify or clearly include in the Bill. However, the provision allows teachers to conduct searches, and if teachers know that certain items are being abused as part of a fashion, they can deal with the problem.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right that we are seeking to empower head teachers and teachers to exercise the powers in the Bill, but we want them to do so only if they feel safe confident and safe. We have held extensive discussions with the teachers’ trade unions to ensure that teachers receive proper support and back-up, which is why I also want to hold discussions with the FE institutions. I do not want to place staff in a position in which they feel vulnerable.
I support the powers because I want fewer children to carry knives in our schools—we must stop knives being carried in schools. I do not particularly want to see more prosecutions, and I would rather see fewer children carrying knives. All hon. Members want to see more preventive work.
If the hon. Member for Woking is disappointed by my responses, I am occasionally disappointed by his undue emphasis on punishment at the expense of prevention, education and support work. Gang culture or peer pressure sometimes draws some of our most vulnerable children into getting involved in carrying knives. Of course, we should enforce the law and prosecute, which is why we have had 6,000 prosecutions. It is also important that we support and educate our young children to prevent them from getting involved in crime and antisocial behaviour.

Humfrey Malins: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: I think, Mr. Forth, that I have adequately dealt with those points.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Forth, the Minister has quite accidentally misled the Committee. I do no think that under this clause she meant to say—

Eric Forth: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not use that term. He will withdraw the remark immediately.

Humfrey Malins: I withdraw it immediately. I was merely going to say that I suspect, Mr. Forth, that the figure that the Minister gave a moment ago on knives being carried on school premises is accurate only in relation to bladed articles being carried in a public place.

Eric Forth: That is most certainly not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point, nevertheless.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Supplemental provisions for Part 2

Amendments made:
No. 292, in clause 36, page 37, line 28, after, ‘25’ insert
‘, (Sales of air weapons by way of trade or business to be face to face)’.
No. 103, in clause 36, page 37, line 33, leave out paragraph (d).
No. 293, in clause 36, page 37, line 34, at end insert—
‘()Sections 28 and 29 bind persons in the service of Her Majesty; and for the purposes of—
(a)this section,
(b)those sections, and
(c)any rule of law under which any of the provisions of section 24, 25, (Sales of air weapons by way of trade or business to be face to face), 30 or 31 do not bind the Crown,
a person is in the service of Her Majesty if he is deemed to be in such service (or to be in the naval, military or air service of Her Majesty) for the purposes of and under section 54 of the 1968 Act (Crown application).’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

7.1 pm

Sitting suspended.

On resuming:—
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Clause 37 - Football-related disorder

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: While we are on the subject of football banning orders and football-related disorder—

Kevin Brennan: Why are you looking at me like that?

Humfrey Malins: I had no intention of looking at the hon. Gentleman in that way.
With the 2006 football World cup less than a year away, it is important that football banning orders operate as effectively as possible. Some concerns have been expressed to me about public safety; it is said by some that there is next to no national strategy on football banning orders. Research suggests that it is unlikely that many orders are complied with or that  breaches are detected. For many forces, it is not a priority, so little or no training is provided for front counter staff.
Unlike immigration officers or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which has special branches that monitor immigrants, contraband goods and terrorism respectively, football intelligence officers have no right to check passports at points of entry and exit. They have the right to request to see passports, regardless of whether individuals are wanted on warrant or for an arrestable offence, or subject to a football banning order. I understand that many of those subject to such orders are acutely aware of that and decline. The result is that they can travel with virtual impunity.
It is noteworthy that the police have the right to use the automatic number plate recognition system on points of entry and exit; they can check vehicles but not the passengers. Is there a reason for that distinction? Would the Minister consider amending the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 to grant police officers the power to demand to see passports at points of entry and exit, as well as granting them the automatic right to access manifest passenger lists to check whether they contain persons who are subject to football banning orders? I am sure that she will agree that it is imperative that the orders operate effectively with the World cup not far away, and I hope that she will be able to deal with the observations that I have passed on, though not necessarily now. In due course, I shall be extremely grateful to have a letter on the point.

Hazel Blears: I am a little surprised at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that he is putting forward a view that has been expressed to him, but in my experience football banning orders have been extremely effective. They certainly were during Euro 2004, when I went out to Portugal to see how the law would be implemented. Everybody who was involved thought that it was a good, imaginative power, used successfully. There was also an effective ports policing operation. Again, I saw that for myself at Manchester airport. I watched the police tackle—“tackle” is probably not the right word—stop people.
The police do have powers to check passports on the departure side of ports. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I believe that the forces take the matter seriously. It is one of our most successful pieces of legislation. Clause 37 and schedule 1 bring in a range of refinements and improvements. We have learned from experience and want to make the law even more effective, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman says, with the 2006 football World cup in Germany coming up. We want to ensure that the proposals are really effective and achieve our aims.
We have a new proposal to extend the control period during which people are not allowed to travel to matches and to empower the police to intercept an individual and to commence banning orders proceedings within 24 hours where there is evidence that that person has previously caused violence. The measures can be used in a targeted and intelligence-led way, so that they really are applied to people who are likely to cause problems.
Schedule 2 introduces bail conditions for situations in which, at the moment, there are lengthy adjournments because there is no power to impose bail conditions. That power is needed in order to make the law effective. There is a right of appeal for cases in which a court fails or declines to make a banning order. Again, that tests why the court has not made an order. It also provides for chief officers to make applications wherever they are. Trouble makers often cause problems in the area where the team is playing rather than in their own area, so that power is important. Making them notify us about changes in circumstances and extending the minimum period from three to five years are also important, as is ensuring that they are banned from the next two-year cycle of European championship and World cup matches.
The provisions in clause 37 and schedule 1 are about strengthening and refining the operation of football banning orders. I believe that the legislation will be successful; it empowers the police to tackle the problem of serious and persistent risk behaviour at football matches. The reputation of British football has been enhanced. A few years ago, we had dreadful international reputation for football hooliganism. I do not say that that has been completely eradicated, but it is much improved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Football banning orders and football-related consequential amendments

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in schedule 1, page 42, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a)for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1)An application for a banning order in respect of any person may be made by—
(a)the relevant chief officer, or
(b)the Director of Public Prosecutions,
if it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is met.”’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 108 and 109.
Government new clause 9—Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons.

Hazel Blears: Amendments Nos. 107 and 109 will make provision for the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise Crown prosecutors to make an application for a banning order on complaint. Our primary aim is to ensure that Crown prosecutors with specialist knowledge of football disorder legislation and of the judicial process in a host country can present applications in circumstances when the evidence of misbehaviour has been gathered overseas.
At present, the court will not always have at its disposal clarification on overseas judicial and administrative processes that are relevant to an application. Having a specialist prosecutor will help the court make the right order.
Government amendment No. 108 updates the offences covered in schedule 1 of the 1989 Act, explicitly to include section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. The schedule lists specific and generic criminal offences that can be designated as football-related if a conviction occurs in circumstances connected to football. At present, section 4A offences are covered only if they involve the use or threat of violence. We want to ensure that we can include threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour as well as violence.
Government new clause 9 amends section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, relating to ticket touting. It ensures that internet sales are covered. We want to redress current inconsistencies and gaps in the ticket touting laws. Our motivation is to deal with public order problems rather than commercial considerations. It is currently an offence to tout in a
“public place or a place to which the public has access”.
That means that ticket touting on the internet is not covered.

Stewart Hosie: I am slightly concerned about the enforceability of the first three subsections of new clause 9. Outside every large all-ticket international match or domestic fixture we see people holding up tickets for sale. Only two weeks ago, before the Dundee United v. Rangers match at Tannadice, there was a queue of people looking to buy or sell tickets that reached my constituency office. The current law on selling tickets in a public place is not being enforced. Is the Minister convinced that the new provision can be enforced?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue is not only about tackling the commercial aspect of touting but about public order. If people are allowed to buy unauthorised tickets, that can damage our crowd segregation policies, which could result in dreadful clashes. The new clause is designed to plug the gap.
I was also asked about the sale of tickets on the internet. International co-operation on internet offences is becoming increasingly important. We explored similar problems with selling guns on the internet, and of people having access to paedophilia and pornography on the internet. We can prosecute in this country only if the internet host company is British. If the host organisation is an international company, we need international agreements to ensure that we get prosecutions in that way. It is not the easiest thing to do, but because we are encountering these problems more regularly, our relationships with other countries are much better in terms of our enforcement policy. That is why it is important to share intelligence internationally. We are working well at that, particularly with the European Union. There is a range of European bodies such as Europol and  Eurojust. We are sharing the European extradition warrant and working on the European evidence warrant. Clearly there is a range of measures that we can seek to use in that way.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the internet provisions, but the problem is the practicality of enforcing the law when tickets are sold on the street within view of a police officer in front of the stadium at every major all-ticket match. People buy and sell tickets simply to gain access to football grounds. The law is not being enforced. I have witnessed it on hundreds of occasions. How does the Minister intend to enforce the restrictions on the selling and buying of tickets on the street?

Hazel Blears: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was asking about internet sales. Clearly, if there is an existing offence, it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the legislation. They will inevitably make a judgment about the implications for public order. If they see people unlawfully selling tickets, that is an existing offence and they should prosecute them and bring them to justice. It is an operational matter in terms of the police activity on the day, but if they feel that it will have a significant impact on public order, they should enforce the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 108, in schedule 1, page 44, line 8, at end insert—
‘New relevant offence
“8A(1)In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (offences), in subparagraphs (c), (k), and (q) after “under section” insert “4A or”.
(2)An offence is not a relevant offence by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) if it was committed before the commencement of this paragraph.’.
No. 109, in schedule 1, page 45, line 14, at end insert—
‘14In the section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions), in subsection (2) after paragraph (fa) insert—
“(faa)where it appears to him appropriate to do so, to have the conduct of applications made by him for orders under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning orders made on complaint);”’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Offering or agreeing to re-programme a mobile telephone

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 42, page 39, line 16, leave out from ‘“(c)’ to end of line 17.
This is in line with other amendments today. As far as I can ascertain, there have been only four successful prosecutions under the Mobile Telephones  (Re-programming) Act 2002. This crime is widespread. I want to be reassured that it is not simply that the first Act is a failure. What difference will this new measure make? If there were four prosecutions in the last three years, how many prosecutions are there likely to be in the next three years?

Hazel Blears: I am surprised about the amendment, because the Bill would create a new offence of offering or agreeing to reprogramme a mobile phone. The hon. Lady is right; there have not been as many prosecutions under the existing legislation as we would have wanted. That is because offences are quite difficult to prove. The Bill will make it easier to bring prosecutions to deal with a problem that is significant. If mobile phones can be reprogrammed, that is an incentive for people to steal them. We want to make sure that that cannot happen.
Reprogramming creates a market for stolen mobile phones. It is an offence, but usually reprogramming occurs behind closed doors and out of sight. The only way, currently, to establish whether an offence has been committed is by test purchasing—asking for a mobile phone to be reprogrammed. Often the person concerned will offer to reprogramme it, or agree to have it reprogrammed, and will ask the undercover police officer to come back later and collect it. The police can thus obtain proof that the phone has been reprogrammed, but cannot prove who did it. If offering to reprogramme a phone is made an offence, it will be possible to prosecute many more people. That is how the offences are carried out. If the police are to tackle reprogramming effectively that approach will be crucial.

Kevan Jones: As my right hon. Friend knows, that was the subject of my private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament, which ran out of time. Does she agree that the industry as well as the police will welcome the measure, because it wants to make it harder for mobile phones to be used as currency in drug deals?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. His welcome Bill could not proceed because the session ended, but it was an excellent one, and I know that he has campaigned on the issues.
About 50 per cent. of robberies involve a mobile phone and in almost a third only a mobile phone is taken. Much of the trouble consists of young people stealing each other’s mobile phones. If it is possible to get them reprogrammed, that is the market for them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the industry is right behind us. In fact, we are working in partnership with the mobile phone industry. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment, because the clause will make prosecution more effective.

Lynne Featherstone: I am glad that the Minister has elucidated the matter. My knowledge of criminal matters was not sufficient to enable me to understand  that the clause is a clever move that will increase the chances of prosecution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Repeals

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert—
‘In section 3(1)(a), the word “or” at the end.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 295, 306 and 307.

Hazel Blears: The amendments are all minor and technical, dealing with repeals consequential to earlier amendments in part 2 of the Bill on firearms and offensive weapons.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 295, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at end insert—
‘In section 40(2), the words from “to firearms” to “therein”.’.
No. 306, in schedule 3, page 48, line 4, column 2, at end insert—
‘In section 51A(1)(a)(i), the word “or” at the end.’.
No. 307, in schedule 3, page 48, line 11, at end insert—
‘Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) Section 141(3).’.— [Hazel Blears.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 - Short title, commencement and extent

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 45, page 39, line 31, after ‘section;’, insert—
‘()section (Cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences);’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences.

Hazel Blears: In June, the Scottish Executive passed the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which introduce in Scotland several new offences and civil orders similar to those that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish legislation, applies only to Scotland and cannot amend the 2003 Act as it applies to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Without the amendments, there is a risk that those previously convicted for a sexual offence, or those whom the courts consider to pose a risk of serious sexual harm, will escape the monitoring of or prohibitions on their behaviour, which we believe they merit, simply by moving over the border.
Various offences have been introduced, including grooming children and causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography, which broadly mirror offences in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that offenders who are subject to the requirement to notify the police that they are in Scotland—commonly known as the sex offenders register—also become subject to the notification requirements whenever they are in any other part of the United Kingdom. As I said, failure to do so could mean that people could simply avoid the notification requirements by moving over the border, and we could leave some very vulnerable people at risk.
The clause ensures that the sexual offences prevention orders and the risk of sexual harm orders can be enforced properly and effectively in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. The amendments set out four offences of breaching the various orders, which will ensure that people are protected from those who pose a threat of sexual harm, wherever they live in the UK. Offenders will not be able to escape the consequences of the law in Scotland, the monitoring of their behaviour or prohibition simply by moving over the border.

Amendment agreed to.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in clause 45, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
‘()Section (Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland) and Schedule (Weapons, etc.: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government new clause 23—Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
Government new schedule 1—‘Weapons, etc: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland.

Hazel Blears: The amendment, new clause and new schedule extend to Northern Ireland most of the weapons provisions in clauses 24, 25, 29 to 34 and 36 in part 2. They introduce the offences of using someone to mind a weapon, restrictions on the sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses, selling realistic imitation firearms, purchasing imitation firearms, and they increase the sentence.
There are good reasons why some clauses do not extend to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, air weapons are deemed to be firearms, so they are already covered by firearms legislation, and primers are already defined as explosives, so they do not need the same provisions as those that cover the rest of the UK.
Clause 35 does not extend to Northern Ireland, because there is believed to be no problem of knife-carrying in schools in Northern Ireland at the moment, so there is no perceived need for head teachers to search pupils for knives. The other provisions are  being applied to Northern Ireland to try to ensure that people living there have the same protection as people living in the rest of the UK.

Amendment agreed to.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 305, in clause 45, page 40, line 8, after ‘38’ insert
‘, section (Continuity of sexual offences law)’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government new clause 24—Continuity of sexual offences law.

Hazel Blears: The amendment and new clause relate to crossbows. Extensive restrictions are already in place to control the sale and use of crossbows. It is an offence to sell or to hire a crossbow to a person under the age of 17. The new clause increases the age limit to 18, in line with the various provisions that we have introduced on guns and knives. In addition, if someone is carrying a crossbow with the intent to cause injury, he could be prosecuted under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public. We do not propose banning the sale of crossbows completely, as they have several legitimate functions. Their main use is the international competitive sport of crossbow archery, of which there are two types—match and field target shooting. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Benton. I am speaking to the wrong amendment.

Humfrey Malins: My apologies; I did not notice.

Eric Forth: No one else did either.

Hon. Members: Carry on!

Hazel Blears: I apologise. I should be talking about sexual offences, but I am talking about violence, which is terribly confusing. I have a Parliamentary Private Secretary to help me with such things, and he has done his duty tonight, so I am very grateful to him.
We are talking about Government amendment No. 305 and Government new clause 24, which relate to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and are the result of a case that has come to our attention. In the Act, we changed the offences under sexual offences law, but at a trial involving a young person, it was impossible, for various technical reasons, to achieve a conviction, because that young person was unable to determine exactly the date on which the offence took place. The person was charged with the offence under the new legislation, but it could not be determined that that law applied, because the young person had difficulty pinpointing the actual day on which the sexual offence had taken place.
In the amendment and the new clause, we seek to make sure that that does not happen again. In a case in which it has been established that the criminal act took place, it is very unjust for the court to be bound to acquit the defendant simply because it cannot establish whether that act took place before or after 1 May 2004. It will be a severe injustice if somebody who has committed an offence is acquitted because the court  simply cannot place the date. The amendment and the new clause will remedy that situation and make sure that it does not happen in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 106, in clause 45, page 40, line 8, after ‘39’, insert
‘and the repeal by Schedule 3 of section 141(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons

‘(1)A member of staff of an attendance centre who has reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant person may have with him or in his possessions—
(a)an article to which section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) applies (knives and blades etc.), or
(b)an offensive weapon (within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (c. 14)),
may search the relevant person or his possessions for such articles and weapons.
(2)A search under this section may be carried out only where the member of staff and the relevant person are on the premises of the attendance centre.
(3)A person may carry out a search under this section only if—
(a)he is the officer in charge of the attendance centre; or
(b)he has been authorised by the officer in charge to carry out the search.
(4)A person who carries out a search of a relevant person under this section—
(a)may not require the relevant person to remove any clothing other than outer clothing;
(b)must be of the same sex as the relevant person; and
(c)may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the relevant person.
(5)A relevant person’s possessions may not be searched under this section except in his presence and in the presence of a person (in addition to the person carrying out the search) who is aged 18 or over.
(6)If a person who, in the course of a search under this section, finds—
(a)anything which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting falls within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or
(b)any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence,
he may seize and retain it.
(7)A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for exercising that power.
(8)A person who seizes anything under subsection (6) must deliver it to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable.
(9)The Police (Property) Act 1897 (c. 30) (disposal of property in the possession of the police) shall apply to property which has come into the possession of a police constable under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.
(10)An authorisation for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) may be given either in relation to a particular search or generally in relation to searches under this section or to a particular description of such searches.
(11)In this section—
‘attendance centre’ has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (see section 221 of that Act);
‘officer in charge’, in relation to an attendance centre, means the member of staff for the time being in charge of that centre;
‘outer clothing’ includes an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat;
‘possessions’, in relation to a person, includes any goods over which he has or appears to have control;
‘relevant person’, in relation to an attendance centre, means a person who is required to attend at that centre by virtue of—
(a)a relevant order (within the meaning of section 196 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)); or
(b)an attendance centre order under section 60 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6).
(12)The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any powers exercisable by the member of staff of an attendance centre in question apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting such powers.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 - Cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences

‘(1)The following provisions of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 9) extend to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland, as well as to Scotland—
(a)section 17 (which relates to the making of sexual offences prevention orders in Scotland); and
(b)section 18 and the Schedule, so far as they provide for the amendment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (see paragraph 3 of the Schedule, which relates to the offences in respect of which powers are exercisable under Part 2 of the 2003 Act).
(2)In section 128 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (offence of contravening a risk of sexual harm order or an interim order), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A)In subsection (1) and, accordingly, in section 129(5) the references to a risk of sexual harm order and to an interim risk of sexual harm order include references, respectively—
(a)to an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 9) (RSHOs in Scotland); and
(b)to an order under section 5 of that Act (interim RSHOs in Scotland);
and, for the purposes of this section, prohibitions imposed by an order made in one part of the United Kingdom apply (unless expressly confined to particular localities) throughout that and every other part of the United Kingdom.”
(3)In section 129 of that Act, in subsection (1)(a) (effect of conviction under section 128), for “under section 128” substitute “mentioned in subsection (1A)”; and after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A)Those offences are—
(a)an offence under section 128 of this Act;
(b)an offence under section 7 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 9) (contravention of RSHO or interim RSHO in Scotland).”
(4)Subsection (3) of section 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increase of maximum sentence on summary conviction of an either way offence), so far as it applies to offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, applies to them as amended, extended or applied by virtue of this section.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9 - Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons

‘(1)The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 166 (sale of tickets by unauthorised persons), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1)It is an offence for an unauthorised person to—
(a)sell a ticket for a designated football match, or
(b)otherwise to dispose of such a ticket to another person.”
(3)In subsection (2) of that section, after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa)a reference to selling a ticket includes a reference to—
(i)offering to sell a ticket;
(ii)exposing a ticket for sale;
(iii)making a ticket available for sale by another;
(iv)advertising that a ticket is available for purchase; and
(v)giving a ticket to a person who pays or agrees to pay for some other goods or services or offering to do so.”
(4)After section 166 insert—
“166A Supplementary provision relating to sale and disposal of tickets on internet
(1)Nothing in section 166 makes it an offence for a service provider established outside of the United Kingdom to do anything in the course of providing information society services.
(2)If—
(a)a service provider established in the United Kingdom does anything in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom in the course of providing information society services, and
(b)the action, if done in England and Wales, would constitute an offence falling within section 166(1),
the service provider shall be guilty in England and Wales of an offence under that section.
(3)A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section 166 in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in—
(a)the transmission in a communication network of information falling within subsection (4), or
(b)the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service,
except where subsection (5) applies.
(4)Information falls within this subsection if—
(a)it is provided by a recipient of the service; and
(b)it is the subject of automatic, intermediate and temporary storage which is solely for the purpose making the onward transmission of the information to other recipients of the service at their request more efficient.
(5)This subsection applies at any time in relation to information if—
(a)the service provider knew when that information was provided that it contained material contravening section 166; or
(b)that information is stored at that time (whether as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) or (4)) in consequence of the service provider’s failure expeditiously to remove the information, or to disable access to it, upon obtaining actual knowledge that the information contained material contravening section 166.
(6)In this section—
‘the Directive’ means Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce);
‘information society services’—
(a)has the meaning set out in Article 2(a) of the Directive (which refers to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for  the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of 20 July 1998); and
(b)is summarised in recital 17 of the Directive as covering ‘any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service’;
‘EEA State’ means a state which is for the time being a member State, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein;
‘recipient of the service’ means any person who, for professional ends or otherwise, uses an information society service, in particular for the purposes of seeking information or making it accessible;
‘service provider’ means any person providing an information society service.”.’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17 - Prohibition on sale or transfer of air weapons except by registered dealers

‘(1)In subsection (1) of section 3 of the 1968 Act (offence for a person other than a registered firearms dealer to sell etc. a firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business), at the end of paragraph (b) insert “or
(c)sells or transfers an air weapon, exposes such a weapon for sale or transfer or has such a weapon in his possession for sale or transfer,”.
(2)In section 40(2) of that Act (which excludes air weapons from the requirements to keep a register of transactions), omit the words from “to firearms” to “therein”.
(3)In section 57(4) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of “firearms dealer”, for the words from “manufactures” onwards substitute—
“(a)manufactures, sells, transfers, repairs, tests or proves firearms or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies or shot guns; or
(b)sells or transfers air weapons.”.’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18 - Sales of air weapons by way of trade or business to be face to face

‘(1)This section applies where a person sells an air weapon by way of trade or business to an individual in Great Britain who is not registered as a firearms dealer.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purposes of the sale, he transfers possession of the air weapon to the buyer otherwise than at a time when both—
(a)the buyer, and
(b)either the seller or a representative of his,
are present in person.
(3)The reference in subsection (2) to a representative of the seller is a reference to—
(a)a person who is employed by the seller in his business as a registered firearms dealer;
(b)a registered firearms dealer who has been authorised by the seller to act on his behalf in relation to the sale; or
(c)a person who is employed by a person falling within paragraph (b) in his business as a registered firearms dealer.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both; and
(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (4)(a) of this section to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19 - Minimum sentence for certain firearms offences

‘(1)The 1968 Act is amended as follows.
(2)In section 51A (which imposes minimum sentence requirements for certain offences involving the possession of various firearms), in subsection (1)—
(a)in paragraph (a)(ii), for “and” substitute “or”;
(b) after paragraph (a)(ii) insert—
“(iii)an offence under any of the provisions of this Act listed in subsection (1A) in respect of a firearm or ammunition specified in section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae), (af) or (c) or section 5(1A)(a) of this Act, and”.
(3)After that subsection insert—
“(1A)The provisions are—
(a)section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to injure);
(b)section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence);
(c)section 17 (use of firearm to resist arrest);
(d)section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent);
(e)section 19 (carrying a firearm in a public place);
(f)section 20(1) (trespassing in a building with firearm).”
(4)In Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences) in column 3, in paragraph (a) of the entries relating to sections 19 and 20(1), after “Summary”, in each place, insert “except if the firearm is a firearm specified in section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae), or (af) or section 5(1A)(a) of this Act.”
(5)This section applies only to offences committed after the commencement of this section.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20 - Specific defences applying to the offence under section 30

‘(1)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 30 in respect of any conduct to show that the conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
(2)Those purposes are—
(a)the purposes of a museum or gallery that does not distribute any profits it makes;
(b)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;
(c)the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—see section 5B of that Act);
(d)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)—see section 405(1) of that Act);
(e)the purposes of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified or described for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3)For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (1) if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(4)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(6)In this section—
“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event;
“museum or gallery” includes any institution which—
(a)has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest; and
(b)gives the public access to it.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21 - Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

‘(1)In section 30 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—
(a)has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and
(b)is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.
(2)For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of subsection (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—
(a)by an expert;
(b)on a close examination; or
(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.
(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—
(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and
(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.
(4)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection (3)(b)—
(a)the size of an imitation firearm is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if the imitation firearm has dimensions that are less than the dimensions specified in the regulations; and
(b)a colour is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if it is a colour specified in the regulations.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)In this section—
“colour” is to be construed in accordance with subsection (9);
“de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—
(a)was a firearm; but
(b)has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;
“real firearm” means—
(a)a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or
(b)something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.
(8)In subsection (7) “modern firearm” means any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870.
(9)References in this section, in relation to an imitation firearm or a real firearm, to its colour include references to its being made of transparent material.
(10)Section 8 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (c. 45) (under which firearms are deemed to be deactivated if they are appropriately marked) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of the 1968 Act.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22 - Sale etc. of crossbows

‘(1)In the Crossbows Act 1987 (c. 32), in the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), for “seventeen”, in each place it occurs, substitute “eighteen”.
(2)The provisions are—
(a)section 1 (sale and letting on hire);
(b)section 2 (purchase and hiring);
(c)section 3 (possession).’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not need to add much to what I have already said. The proposal will increase to 18 the age at which people can have crossbows.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23 - Corresponding provision for northern ireland

‘Schedule (Weapons, etc.: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) (which makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made by the preceding provisions of this Part, other than sections (Prohibition on sale or transfer of air weapons except by registered dealers) to 28, 35 and (Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons) has effect.’.—[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24 - Continuity of sexual offences law

‘(1)This section applies where, in any proceedings—
(a)a person (“the defendant”) is charged in respect of the same conduct both with an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (“the 2003 Act offence”) and with an offence specified in subsection (2) (“the pre-commencement offence”);
(b)the only thing preventing the defendant from being found guilty of the 2003 Act offence is the fact that it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the time when the conduct took place was after the coming into force of the enactment providing for the offence; and
(c)the only thing preventing the defendant from being found guilty of the pre-commencement offence is the fact that it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that time was before the coming into force of the repeal of the enactment providing for the offence.
(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—
(a)any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69);
(b)an offence under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (c.83) (obscene exposure);
(c)an offence under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89) (indecent exposure);
(d)an offence under section 61 or 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (buggery etc.);
(e)an offence under section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (c. 72) (sexual intercourse with patients);
(f)an offence under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (c. 33) (indecency with children);
(g)an offence under section 4 or 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (procuring an man to commit buggery and living on the earnings of male prostitution);
(h)an offence under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (burglary, including entering premises with intent to commit rape);
(i)an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (c. 45) (incitement of girl under 16 to commit incest);
(j)an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (indecent photographs of children);
(k)an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (c. 44) (abuse of position of trust);
(l)an offence under section 145 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (traffic in prostitution).
(3)For the purpose of determining the guilt of the defendant it shall be conclusively presumed that the time when the conduct took place was—
(a)if the maximum penalty for the pre-commencement offence is less than the maximum penalty for the 2003 Act offence, a time before the coming into force of the repeal of the enactment providing for the pre-commencement offence; and
(b)in any other case, a time after the coming into force of the enactment providing for the 2003 Act offence.
(4)In subsection (3) the reference, in relation an offence, to the maximum penalty is a reference to the maximum penalty by way imprisonment or other detention that could be imposed on the defendant on conviction of the offence in the proceedings in question.
(5)A reference in this section to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) or to an offence specified in subsection (2) includes a reference to—
(a)inciting the commission of that offence;
(b)conspiracy to commit that offence; and
(c)attempting to commit that offence;
and, in relation to an offence falling within paragraphs (a) to (c), a reference in this section to the enactment providing for the offence so falling has effect as a reference to the enactment providing for the offence under that Act or, as the case may be, for the offence so specified.
(6)This section applies to any proceedings, whenever commenced, other than proceedings in which the defendant has been convicted or acquitted of the 2003 Act offence or the pre-commencement offence before the commencement of this section.’. —[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Offences against ‘public servants’

‘An offence is aggravated by reason of being committed against a public servant for the purposes of Sections [Offences against public servants: malicious wounding etc.] and [Offences against public servants: harassment etc.] if the victim is a public servant under the provisions of Section [Definition of “public servant”].’.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

James Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Definition of ‘Public Servant’—
‘A person is a public servant if—
(a)he is an employee of a public authority acting in the course of his employment;
(b)he is engaged in the provision of care on behalf of the National Health Service and acting in the course of his employment;
(c)he is engaged in the provision of education in maintained schools or further or higher education and acting in the course of his employment;
(d)he is employed by central or local government, including fire services, and is acting in the course of his employment;
(e)he is engaged in the provision of social housing and is acting in the course of his employment;
(f)he is engaged in the provision of public transport, including railways, buses and taxis, and is acting in the course of his employment.’.
New clause 5—Offences against public servants: malicious wounding etc.—
‘(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a)an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (24 and 25 Vict c. 100) (malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm),
(b)an offence against section 47 of that Act (actual bodily harm), or
(c)common assault,
which is aggravated by reason of being committed against a public servant.
(2)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to a fine, or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine, or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence falling with subsection (1)(c) above shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.’.
‘(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a)an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (fear or provocation of violence);
(b)an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or
(c)an offence against section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress),
which is aggravated by reason of being committed against a public servant.
(2)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing an offence falling within subsections (1)(a) or (b) above.
(3)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in conduct which a constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above;
(b)he is warned by the constable to stop; and
(c)he engages in further such conduct immediately, or shortly after the warning.
The conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) above and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(4)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsections (1)(a) or (b) above shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
(5)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6)If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsections (1)(a) or (b) above the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.’.

James Clappison: The three new clauses in my name together create an offence of violence against a public servant and make it an aggravated offence, which attracts a higher maximum sentence than would otherwise be the case.
My starting point is that all offences of violence are a serious matter, but offences of violence committed against a public servant are particularly serious for the reasons that I shall outline. There are a number of factors that establish why that is the case. First, in many cases the public servant will be fulfilling a duty in the service that he or she provides to the public, and in some cases will be fulfilling a duty as a member of the emergency services—for example, in the case of fire or ambulance services—in very serious situations. In many instances the public servant will be in a particularly vulnerable situation doing his or her duty.
In all cases involving a public servant, he or she is providing a service to the public, and to attack the public servant is to attack the public service itself; that is, to interfere with or disrupt the service and cause loss and disruption to the public as a whole and in some cases even put the public in danger.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that a person who attacks a nurse is committing a particularly despicable act, but it is not just a despicable act against that nurse. The assailant is  also disrupting a vital public service, perhaps taking out of public service someone who would otherwise have been able to give extra care and attention to other members of the public, who may go without that expert care and attention because of the antisocial actions of the assailant.
The Committee will know that attacks against public servants are sadly all too frequent and, in a number of cases, they are on the increase. For some antisocial members of our society, no depths are too low and no irresponsibility is too wanton. I can perhaps best illustrate that with a local example from my constituency, which also involves the topical issue of air weapons. Earlier this year, the fire service in my constituency, which does a first-class job—as fire services do in all constituencies—was called out as an emergency service to attend a potentially dangerous and malfunctioning shop sign in the main street. A male officer investigating the situation was shot in the forehead with an air pellet. Happily, the injuries that he sustained were not serious, but it does not take great imagination to realise that they could have been. It was good fortune that he did not suffer serious injuries.
Fire officers who turn out to deal with incidents face enough risks without additional hazards. I am sad to say that it is not unusual for fire officers to suffer such hazards. It is happening up and down the country. According to a written answer that I received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 22 June, there were hundreds of such attacks on firefighters last year. That is one example; I could no doubt find many others involving fine public servants who provide a service in our constituencies.

Stephen McCabe: I know that no one will be desperate for me to detain the Committee, but I want to put a straightforward point to the hon. Gentleman. I have immense sympathy with his proposal, but it occurs to me that the way it is framed means that someone who attacked a police officer while the police officer was acting as an employee in the course of his employment would be guilty of the aggravated offence, but someone who attacked an off-duty police officer because of a previous grievance would not, and neither would someone who attacked a former police officer because of a grievance. The intention is clear but the reality is that drawing such a distinction would be unhelpful. We could find that identical assaults were treated differently depending on whether a person was on duty at the time. That may be a flaw in the proposal.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and it may interest him to know that if he looks down the list of persons covered by new clause 4, which is the definitional clause and which I was going to come to, he will see that a police officer is not named. A police officer would undoubtedly be covered by virtue of his being an employee of a public authority acting in the course of his employment.
Mr. Malinsrose—

James Clappison: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
It may interest the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) to know that his counter-argument is not a good one because there is already the separate offence of assaulting a police officer. The distinctions that he has drawn between a police officer’s being on or off duty have not prevented that offence from being a well-established part of our criminal law which has served to protect police officers in the course of their duties.

Humfrey Malins: I was simply going to make the point that my hon. Friend mentioned about the assault of police officers. He covered it admirably.

James Clappison: The test will always be whether somebody is, in the course of their duties, providing a service to the public. That is not to say that other offences of assault are not serious, but interference with a public servant carrying out his duties is the test that lies at the heart of the proposals. It is important that we should give those public servants additional protection.
Further points might be made about the definition in new clause 4. The intention is to cover all who serve the public according to the test that I have just outlined. It includes, among many others, all those involved in the provision of public transport, including bus and railway employees. In the course of carrying out a small amount of research by way of parliamentary questions, I found that there has been an increase in the number of attacks on such public servants.
The Committee may be aware of the very good poster campaign in railway stations which aims to deter people from abusing public servants. It is imaginative and necessary, because there has been a substantial increase in recent years in the number of assaults on both bus and railway staff. To give one example, the number of assaults on railway staff recorded by the British Transport police rose from 1,329 in 2000 to 2,769 in the last year for which figures were recorded. There is a similar trend in the case of bus company employees, both drivers and the diminishing number of bus conductors. The number of assaults on such public servants runs into the thousands. It will not take much imagination on our part to realise the vulnerability of such people, who sometimes work late at night, often on their own, providing a valuable service to the public.
I hope that the Committee will also notice that I have taken something of a liberty with the definition of public transport by extending it to include taxi drivers. They, too, provide an important service to the public, and they are particularly vulnerable to assault. Apparently, no figures have been collected on assaults on taxi drivers, but I fear that cases concerning such attacks are all too common in our courts. They, too, are isolated and vulnerable people who provide a valuable service to the public, but who are at risk in a number of ways when they are carrying out their work.
We might have further debate on the definition, but I hope that the Minister will accept the intention to value and protect our vulnerable public servants. I shall happily listen to any suggestion as to how we  might improve the definition, but I hope that we will not allow technical arguments about definitions to get in the way of the intention. I am sure that the provision could be put into statutory form without too much trouble.
New clauses 5 and 6 provide for maximum sentences, which are higher if the victim is a public servant than they would otherwise be for such offences. I hope that they are technically sound—they follow the scheme of provisions relating to racially aggravated offences. I have taken the liberty of borrowing the wording from the relevant clauses in other legislation in order to put into law these provisions protecting public servants.
My intention is simply to send out the message that offences against public servants are a serious matter. Those who assault our public servants should expect to be dealt with severely. Those advertisements in railway stations, and the other ways in which we try to deter people from carrying out assaults on public servants, will be backed up by the message that we can send through this Bill that we will protect our public servants by creating severe sentences for such assaults.

Stephen Pound: Some of us may have a difficulty in view of our non-pecuniary interest in new clause 4(d). Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether Members of Parliament would be covered by it? If that were the case, an interest would have to be declared.

James Clappison: I have to say that I tried to think of as many public servants as possible to declare. The hon. Gentleman has given me something of a conundrum as that was not something that fell within my range of contemplation. Although we are public servants, I am thinking primarily of the sort of public servants that I have defined this evening. I hope that the Committee will be with me in wanting to give them the protection that they deserve.

Humfrey Malins: I support my hon. Friend. He has done the Committee a great service by introducing the new clause. His arguments are powerful and compelling, and I congratulate him.

Jeremy Wright: I too commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The Minister will no doubt rely on the fact that the issues that he raised could be regarded as aggravating features under existing offences. As my hon. Friend said, public servants deserve our protection under the law. I have no doubt that she will also bear in mind that they will relish the fact that some offences on the statute book give them overt protection. I hope that she will give that serious consideration.

Hazel Blears: I have considered the matter extremely seriously. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that attacks on public servants are completely and utterly unacceptable. Many people place themselves in vulnerable positions, face to face with the public, and carry out their duties selflessly and in the most altruistic manner—and we rely on them to do so. The worst thing that can happen is that they are  assaulted while carrying out those duties. I entirely share the concerns expressed by hon. Members. However, there are grave difficulties with the new clauses.
I shall not deal only with the technical difficulties; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they can often be overcome. However, I have substantive reasons for asking the Committee to resist the new clauses. It is doubtful whether they would give any extra protection to public servants. It is not simply a matter of having such provisions on the statute book. Making law can sometimes seem to be a gesture—I do not say that that is what the hon. Gentleman has done—so we must ensure that the law delivers what we want, which is increased protection for people who serve the public.
First, the Sentencing Guidelines Council has responsibility for issuing sentencing guidance to the courts. The magistrates court sentencing guidelines and the council itself speak of attacks being committed against a victim who is providing a service to the public. It is important to realise that those who provide services to the public may technically not be public servants.
Hon. Members may remember the excellent freedom from fear campaign conducted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Some of our shop workers have been subjected to the most horrendous attacks and verbal harassment. Shopkeepers who refuse to serve alcohol to under-18-year-olds can find themselves in a dreadful position, and we have used antisocial behaviour orders to ban such people from shops. I am concerned that, if we applied the rules only to public servants, we would miss out a range of people who serve the public.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance is a much better way to proceed. We could end up with someone working in the NHS being protected while they were looking after an national health service patient but not if they were looking after someone else.

Jeremy Wright: I understand entirely what the Minister says. Does she accept that those who are tempted to commit the type of offences described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere will recognise much more clearly an offence that specifically defines itself as an assault on a public service worker than they would recognise guideline sentencing?

Hazel Blears: That is a real challenge to the Government. When we get the sentencing guidance, we must ensure that it is clear to those who might contemplate carrying out an assault on someone who serves the public that it will be an aggravating factor and that it is likely to attract a longer sentence. It is important to have a public education campaign saying that it is entirely unacceptable behaviour. That is what the freedom from fear campaign did. It is also the subject of the campaign being run by the Transport and General Workers Union for people who work on  public transport. However, the Government also have a responsibility to ensure that the message is sent out loud and clear.
My other objection is that, if we create a specific offence, it may prove more difficult to get a conviction. People might seek to evade responsibility by basing their defence on whether a victim was acting in the course of his employment. That could make it complicated to get a conviction. At the moment, we have only to convict on assault, grievous bodily harm, a section 18 wounding or a section 20 offence. Those are well established criminal law procedures. If we complicate the matter by creating specific offences, we have to prove something extra on top of the fact that somebody has committed an assault, such as that it was on somebody acting in the course of his employment. My concern is that people will find it easier to evade conviction for such offences than they do for offences under existing law.

Humfrey Malins: I am following the Minister’s argument, but is it not let down by the fact that there is no difficulty with the current law on assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty? People do not get themselves acquitted by getting round that and making it very complicated. If that specific charge can be handled perfectly properly in the courts, does not her argument fail?

Hazel Blears: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at some of the figures that I have seen on the offence that he mentions. I do not have them on me, but I shall be more than happy to supply them. They appear to indicate that the sentences imposed with regard to the specific offence are no greater than those imposed for general offences, so we are not providing any more protection by creating a specific offence. I shall happily provide any information that Committee members would like to see, because I am concerned that we do not put offences on to the statute book that might result in public service workers enjoying less protection than they have now. I accept the point about sending out a message, and we can do that through the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
There are many vulnerable groups as well as public service workers, although they are hugely important. Assaults on elderly people should be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines when aggravating factors and the degree of seriousness of the offences against vulnerable people are considered.
There are sometimes direct parallels with what is happening in Scotland. A specific offence of assaulting or impeding an emergency worker responding to emergency circumstances has recently been introduced there. That offence is much more narrowly drawn than the offences that the hon. Member for Hertsmere seeks to set out. It is important to follow what happens—

Stewart Hosie: The Minister has said that the Scottish provision is more narrowly drawn. She might not be aware, but it is useful for her to know, that there is ongoing debate in Scotland to the effect that it should be widened to all public sector workers and, as has been suggested here, to those who serve the public in different circumstances.

Hazel Blears: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we monitor the impact of that, and see whether it results in better protection, or fulfils my concern that it might be more difficult to prove a specific offence than it is to prove the established offences in the criminal law.
The introduction of that offence in Scotland has taken place in the context of a wide-ranging campaign of education and information. Much similar work is being done in England, particularly in relation to the NHS. The campaign that has been going on in the health service for several years is bearing fruit. More prosecutions are being brought and there is more of a zero-tolerance attitude to violence against NHS workers. It is right that that should happen, as should other measures, such as the installation of video cameras in the cabs of buses and trains. It is important to capture as much evidence as we can so that prosecutions can be brought.
Our guidelines on seriousness and aggravating factors should be sufficient to deal with the issues, but we need to make it crystal clear to anybody who might contemplate attacking people who serve the public that the decent, law-abiding majority find that completely unacceptable, that they will be dealt with properly and severely by the courts and that appropriate sentences will be passed. On that basis, I am not able to support the new clauses, although I accept the spirit in which they have been proposed.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for her words about the intention of my new clause. I was hoping that there would be a little more of a chink of light in there. I was not necessarily expecting the Minister to go the whole hog—if I can put it that way—and open the door completely. I shall try to persuade her that there should be a chink of light and that some of the arguments she has sincerely put before the Committee do not hold as much water as she thinks.
To take the first of her arguments, she said that the new clause would not give much extra protection because protection is already provided by sentencing guidelines, which show that this matter should be taken seriously. Moreover, she added that it is committing an offence anyway, with aggravating features that can be drawn to the attention of the court. That is all well and good, but the Government decided to go down the route of creating aggravated offences to mark out particular offences as serious. They began doing so with racially aggravated offences, from which some of the wording of the new clause is borrowed.
We went round the course on that argument when racially aggravated offences were created and the Government took that action. They recognised that there was extra value in having an aggravated offence in relation to racial offences. I do not take one whit away from the seriousness of racially aggravated offences, but the Minister’s argument does not hold water. If that course were taken in the case of racially aggravated offences, it could be taken just as easily in the case of offences against public servants.
The Minister’s second argument stated that other people who come into contact with the public and serve them on behalf of other interests also deserve to be protected. She overlooked one of the points I made in what I set out as the test of public servants. The Minister gave an example of someone working in an off-licence who suffered abuse or assault because they would not serve an under-age person with drink or cigarettes, which could also happen to someone working in a store. Those are serious offences, but they are different from this type of offence because there is no interference with a service provided to the public. The store might have to close and the employer might have to take on someone else to serve the public, but that would not interfere with a vital service to the public as it would in the case where a nurse is assaulted and their services are lost to members of the public.
I cited the example of a fire officer being assaulted, meaning that his services are lost to the public. Think how serious the consequences of that could be, not just through disruption and inconvenience to public service. Think how serious it could be for members of the public if a fire officer were taken out of action by an antisocial act. It is a question not just of a shop having to close, but of a fire officer being unable to do his duty. Each of the examples I gave dealt with a public servant being assaulted and a service to the public being interfered with, with the possible result that that service is not available to the public. The likely result in all those cases would be inconvenience, disruption and additional cost to the public. That is why those offences are different.
The Minister raised the point about proving that someone was acting in the course of their duties or employment. I hope that she will accept the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who is a lawyer with experience in such matters. The idea of someone acting in the course of their duties is not unfamiliar to civil or criminal law, and it is not beyond the wit of prosecutors to prove, courts to know or judges to judge when someone is acting in the course of their employment. That is not a particularly pressing argument to use.
The Minister referred to emergency workers. The hon. Member for Dundee, East made the point that that might be a bigger example of getting hung up on a definition than anything else we have heard this evening. There is a question of who is an emergency worker for these purposes and I suggest that that is a much less straightforward matter than deciding who is providing a service to the public.
I am not that familiar with cases in Scotland. I do not know, for example, and the hon. Gentleman might be able to assist us, if a nurse would be considered as an emergency worker in Scotland. I imagine that a fire crew would be. I want to protect nurses and everyone else who is providing a service to the public in the way I have described.
I welcome all the measures that the Government are taking and which the Minister described, such as putting spies in cabs and having advertising campaigns. However, that is not an argument for not having the new clauses too. I am suggesting that we  should reinforce all the messages that the Minister wants to send. The new clauses would do so in a clear way by spelling it out to everyone responsible for these antisocial actions that they would face a serious criminal penalty.
I hope that the Minister can at least find it in herself to say that she will think more carefully about the issue and will perhaps return to it. I would be more than happy if she gave me just some hope on this front. I have no problem with her saying that she does not accept the new clauses because they are not technically perfect. However, the intention behind them is sound and could be put into law perfectly well. I would not be happy if technical definitional factors defeated something whose intention was reasonable and was shared by many of our constituents.

Hazel Blears: I am not entirely convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. I genuinely think that there is an issue about the proposals. Let us imagine that a prosecution is brought and a specific offence has to be proved in respect of someone who was carrying out duties in the course of their employment. We could fail on that charge and then the person could not be prosecuted for the offence that had been committed. I do not want people to be more vulnerable than they would be otherwise, but I genuinely believe that that could happen in certain cases under the proposed system. The more complex we make the offence, the more elements have to be proven to secure a conviction. I do not want offences on the statute book that do not provide extra protection to workers in the circumstances that we are discussing.
It is still a powerful point that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make a distinction between those serving the public and public servants. I think that people serving the public deserve protection. Provision that covered only people engaged in particular jobs or occupations would be too narrow. People serving the public are entitled to the full protection of the criminal law.
I am not entirely convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, but he is very persuasive and I will continue to think about the issue. We have a manifesto commitment to ensure that there are tougher sentences for people who attack workers engaged in serving the public, and that is exactly what I mean to achieve through the Sentencing Guidelines Council and a proper campaign of publicity that tells people that if they indulge in particular action, they will face the full weight of the law. They will certainly face antisocial behaviour action too. We are using antisocial behaviour orders in addition to prosecutions under the criminal law, so we have a wide range of tools now to deal with what is a real problem in our society.
I do not accept that the way forward is through the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses. We can do what is necessary through the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I would like to share the information that we have about the offence in respect of police officers, which  appears to indicate that the specific offences do not give people the additional protection that we want them to have.

James Clappison: I think that I got the merest glimpse of a chink of light in the Minister’s remarks. If that is the case, this has been a useful debate. However, I want to study the totality of her remarks to see how much light was in them and to reflect carefully on them. I may want to consider the issue at a later stage in consideration of the Bill, but as there has been a short but useful debate this evening, which has ventilated an important subject that may well be worthy of further consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1 - ‘Weapons, etc: corresponding provisions for northern ireland

Using someone to mind a weapon 1(1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)he uses another to look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon for him; and (b)he does so under arrangements or in circumstances that facilitate, or are intended to facilitate, the weapon’s being available to him for an unlawful purpose.
1(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he uses another to look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon for him; and
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph the cases in which a dangerous weapon is to be regarded as available to a person for an unlawful purpose include any case where—
(a)the weapon is available for him to take possession of it at a time and place; and
(b)his possession of the weapon at that time and place would constitute, or be likely to involve or to lead to, the commission by him of an offence.
(3)In this paragraph “dangerous weapon” means—
(a)a firearm other than an exempt air gun or a component part of, or accessory to, an exempt air gun; or
(b)a weapon to which Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) applies (knives and bladed weapons).
(4)In sub-paragraph (3)(a) “exempt air gun” means an air gun to which paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 1 of the Firearms Order applies (air guns for which firearm certificate not required).
Penalty for offence under paragraph 1 2(1)This paragraph applies where a person (“the offender”) is guilty of an offence under paragraph 1. (2)Where the dangerous weapon in respect of which the offence was committed is a weapon to which Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (1996/3160 (NI 24)) (knives and bladed weapons) applies, the offender shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine, or to both. (3)Where— (a)at the time of the offence, the offender was aged 16 or over, and (b)the dangerous weapon in respect of which the offence was committed was a firearm mentioned in Article 3(1)(a) or 45(1)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (g) or (2)(a) of the Firearms Order (firearms possession of which attracts a minimum sentence),
2(1)This paragraph applies where a person (“the offender”) is guilty of an offence under paragraph 1.
(2)Where the dangerous weapon in respect of which the offence was committed is a weapon to which Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (1996/3160 (NI 24)) (knives and bladed weapons) applies, the offender shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine, or to both.
(3)Where—
(a)at the time of the offence, the offender was aged 16 or over, and
the offender shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both.
(4)On a conviction where—
(a)sub-paragraph (3) applies, and
(b)the offender is aged 21 or over at the time of conviction,
the court must impose (with or without a fine) a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years, unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
(5)On a conviction, where—
(a)sub-paragraph (3) applies, and
(b)the offender is aged under 21 at the time of conviction,
the court must impose (with or without a fine) a term of detention in a young offenders centre of not less than 3 years, unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
(6)In any case not mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the offender shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine, or to both.
(7)Where—
(a)a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this paragraph, and
(b)at the time of the offence the offender was aged 18 or over and the person used to look after, hide or transport the weapon was not,
the court must treat the fact that that person was under the age of 18 at that time as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor increasing the seriousness of the offence).
(8)Where a court treats a person’s age as an aggravating factor in accordance with sub-paragraph (7), it must state in open court that the offence was aggravated as mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(9)Where—
(a)an offence under paragraph 1 of using another person for a particular purpose is found to have involved that other person’s having possession of a weapon, or being able to make it available, over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, and
(b)on any day in that period, an age requirement was satisfied,
the question whether sub-paragraph (3) applies or (as the case may be) the question whether the offence was aggravated under this paragraph is to be determined as if the offence had been committed on that day.
(10)In sub-paragraph (9) the reference to an age requirement is a reference to either of the following—
(a)the requirement of sub-paragraph (3) that the offender was aged 16 or over at the time of the offence;
(b)the requirement of sub-paragraph (7) that the offender was aged 18 or over at that time and that the other person was not.
Minimum sentence for certain firearms offences 3(1)The Firearms Order is amended as follows. (2)In Article 70 (which imposes minimum sentence requirements for certain offences involving the possession of various firearms), in paragraph (1)— (a)in sub-paragraph (a)(iii) for “and” substitute “or”; (b)after sub-paragraph (a)(iii) insert—
3(1)The Firearms Order is amended as follows.
(2)In Article 70 (which imposes minimum sentence requirements for certain offences involving the possession of various firearms), in paragraph (1)—
(a)in sub-paragraph (a)(iii) for “and” substitute “or”;
“(iv)an offence under any of the provisions of this Order listed in paragraph (1A) in respect of a firearm or ammunition specified in Article 3(1)(a) or Article 45(1)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (g) or (2)(a), and”.
(3)After paragraph (1) of that Article insert—
“(1A)The provisions are—
(a)Article 58 (possession of a firearm with intent);
(b)Article 59 (use of firearm to resist arrest);
(c)Article 60 (carrying a firearm with criminal intent);
(d)Article 61(1) (carrying a firearm in a public place);
(e)Article 62 (trespassing in a building with a firearm).”
(4)In Schedule 5 (prosecution and punishment of offences), in column 3, in paragraph (a) of the entries relating to Articles 61(1) and 62(1), after “Summary”, in each place, insert “except if the firearm is a firearm specified in Article 3(1)(a) or Article 45(1)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d) or (e) or (2)(a)”.
(5)This paragraph applies only to offences committed after the commencement of this paragraph.
Restriction on sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses 4(1)It is an offence for a person to sell an ammunition loading press to another unless that other person falls within sub-paragraph (2). (2)A person falls within this sub-paragraph if— (a)he holds a firearms dealer’s certificate; (b)he sells ammunition loading presses by way of any trade or business;
4(1)It is an offence for a person to sell an ammunition loading press to another unless that other person falls within sub-paragraph (2).
(2)A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—
(a)he holds a firearms dealer’s certificate;
(c)he produces a certificate authorising him to possess a firearm;
(d)he produces a certificate authorising him to possess ammunition for a firearm;
(e)he shows that he is a person in the service of the Crown who is entitled under sub-paragraph (5) to acquire an ammunition loading press;
(f)he shows that he is entitled, by virtue of the Firearms Order or any other enactment and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of the Crown, to have possession of a firearm, or of ammunition for a firearm, without a certificate; or
(g)he produces a certificate authorising another person to have possession of a firearm, or of such ammunition, together with that other person’s authority to purchase the ammunition loading press on his behalf.
(3)It is an offence for a person to buy or to attempt to buy an ammunition loading press unless he falls within sub-paragraph (4).
(4)A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—
(a)he holds a firearms dealer’s certificate;
(b)he sells ammunition loading presses by way of any trade or business;
(c)he holds a certificate authorising him to possess a firearm;
(d)he holds a certificate authorising him to possess ammunition for a firearm;
(e)he is a person in the service of the Crown who is entitled under sub-paragraph (5) to acquire an ammunition loading press;
(f)he is entitled, by virtue of the Firearms Order or any other enactment and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of the Crown, to have possession of a firearm, or of ammunition for a firearm, without a certificate; or
(g)he is in possession of a certificate authorising another person to have possession of a firearm, or of ammunition for a firearm, and has that other person’s authority to purchase the ammunition loading press on his behalf.
(5)A person who is in the service of the Crown is entitled to acquire an ammunition loading press if—
(a)he is duly authorised in writing to acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service; or
(b)he is a person who is authorised to purchase a firearm or ammunition by virtue of a certificate issued in accordance with Article 77(2)(c) of the Firearms Order (certificates for persons in armed forces).
(6)An offence under this paragraph shall be punishable, on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both.
(7)In this paragraph—
“ammunition loading press” includes ammunition loading die;
“enactment” includes one passed or made after the passing of this Act.
Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms 5(1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)he manufactures a realistic imitation firearm; (b)he modifies an imitation firearm so that it becomes a realistic imitation firearm;
5(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he manufactures a realistic imitation firearm;
(c)he sells a realistic imitation firearm; or
(d)he brings a realistic imitation firearm into Northern Ireland or causes one to be brought into Northern Ireland.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1) has effect subject to the defences in paragraph 6.
(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a)provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence under sub-paragraph (1); and
(b)provide for it to be a defence in proceedings for such an offence to show the matters specified or described in the regulations.
(4)Regulations under sub-paragraph (3) may—
(a)frame any exception, exemption or defence by reference to an approval or consent given in accordance with the regulations;
(b)provide for approvals and consents to be given in relation to particular cases or in relation to such descriptions of case as may be specified or described in the regulations; and
(c)confer the function of giving approvals or consents on such persons specified or described in the regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under sub-paragraph (3) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)An offence under this paragraph shall be punishable, on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both.
(8)In this paragraph “realistic imitation firearm” has the meaning given by paragraph 7.
6(1)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 5 in respect of any conduct to show that the conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (2).
(2)Those purposes are—
(a)the purposes of a museum or gallery that does not distribute any profits it makes;
(b)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;
(c)the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—see section 5B of that Act);
(d)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)—see section 405(1) of that Act);
(e)the purposes of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified or described for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3)For the purposes of this paragraph a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in sub-paragraph (1) if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(4)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(6)In this paragraph—
“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event;
“museum or gallery” includes any institution which—
(c)has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest; and
(d)gives the public access to it.
7(1)In paragraph 5 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—
(a)has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and
(b)is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—
(a)by an expert;
(b)on a close examination; or
(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.
(3)In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—
(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and
(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.
(4)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b)—
(a)the size of an imitation firearm is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if the imitation firearm has dimensions that are less than the dimensions specified in the regulations; and
(b)a colour is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if it is a colour specified in the regulations.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)In this paragraph—
“colour” is to be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (9);
“de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—
(e)was a firearm; but
(f)has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;
“real firearm” means—
(g)a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or
(h)something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.
(8)In sub-paragraph (7) “modern firearm” means any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870.
(9)References in this paragraph, in relation to an imitation firearm or a real firearm, to its colour include references to its being made of transparent material.
(10)Article 2(7) of the Firearms Order (under which firearms are deemed to be deactivated if they are appropriately marked) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that Order.
Specification for imitation firearms 8(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring imitation firearms to conform to specifications which are— (a)set out in the regulations; or (b)approved by such persons and in such manner as may be so set out.
8(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring imitation firearms to conform to specifications which are—
(a)set out in the regulations; or
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he manufactures an imitation firearm which does not conform to the specifications required of it by regulations under this paragraph;
(b)he modifies an imitation firearm so that it ceases to conform to the specifications so required of it;
(c)he modifies a firearm to create an imitation firearm that does not conform to the specifications so required of it; or
(d)he brings an imitation firearm which does not conform to the specifications so required of it into Northern Ireland or causes such an imitation firearm to be brought into Northern Ireland.
(3)An offence under this paragraph shall be punishable, on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both.
(4)Regulations under this paragraph may provide that, in proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that an imitation firearm conforms to the required specification if it, or the description of imitation firearms to which it belongs, has been certified as so conforming by a person who is—
(a)specified in the regulations; or
(b)determined for the purpose in accordance with provisions contained in the regulations.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c)to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
Supplying imitation firearms to minors 9(1)After Article 66 of the Firearms Order insert— “66ASupplying imitation firearms to minors (1)It is an offence for a person under the age of 18 to purchase an imitation firearm. (2)It is an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under the age of 18. (3)In proceedings for an offence under paragraph (2) it is a defence to show that the person charged with the offence— (a)believed the other person to be aged 18 or over; and (b)had reasonable ground for that belief.”
9(1)After Article 66 of the Firearms Order insert—
“66ASupplying imitation firearms to minors
(1)It is an offence for a person under the age of 18 to purchase an imitation firearm.
(2)It is an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under the age of 18.
(3)In proceedings for an offence under paragraph (2) it is a defence to show that the person charged with the offence—
(a)believed the other person to be aged 18 or over; and
(2)In Article 68 of that Order (defences), for “or 64” substitute “, 64 or 66A”.
(3)In Schedule 5 of that Order (punishments), after the entry for Article 66 insert—
  “Article 66A(1) or (2)Acquisition by a minor of an imitation firearm and supplying him.Summary 6 months or level 5 or both.”.  
Increase of maximum sentence for possessing an imitation firearm 10(1)In the entry in Schedule 5 to the Firearms Order relating to Article 61(1) of that Order (mode of trial and punishment of possession of firearm or imitation firearm in a public place)— (a)in paragraph (b) of column 3 (offence to be triable on indictment except in the case of an imitation firearm or air gun), omit the words “in the case of an imitation firearm or”; and  (b)in column 4, for “10 years or a fine or both” substitute “If the offence is committed in respect of an imitation firearm, 12 months or a fine, or both; in any other case, 10 years or a fine, or both.”
10(1)In the entry in Schedule 5 to the Firearms Order relating to Article 61(1) of that Order (mode of trial and punishment of possession of firearm or imitation firearm in a public place)—
(a)in paragraph (b) of column 3 (offence to be triable on indictment except in the case of an imitation firearm or air gun), omit the words “in the case of an imitation firearm or”; and
(2)This paragraph applies only to offences committed after the commencement of this paragraph.
Sale etc. of knives and other weapons 11In Article 54(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (1996/3160 (NI 24)) (prohibition on sale of knives, etc to persons under 16) for “16” substitute “18”. 12(1)Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (offensive weapons) is amended as follows. (2)In subsections (5), (8) and (9) of section 141 (defences relating to museums and galleries to offence of manufacture, sale etc. of prescribed weapons), for “prove” substitute “show”. (3)After subsection (11) of that section insert— “(11A)It shall be a defence for a person charged in respect of conduct of his relating to a weapon to which this section applies— (a)with an offence under subsection (1) above, or (b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,
11In Article 54(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (1996/3160 (NI 24)) (prohibition on sale of knives, etc to persons under 16) for “16” substitute “18”.
12(1)Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (offensive weapons) is amended as follows.
(2)In subsections (5), (8) and (9) of section 141 (defences relating to museums and galleries to offence of manufacture, sale etc. of prescribed weapons), for “prove” substitute “show”.
(3)After subsection (11) of that section insert—
“(11A)It shall be a defence for a person charged in respect of conduct of his relating to a weapon to which this section applies—
(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above, or
to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the weapon in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection.
(11B)Those purposes are—
(a)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;
(b)the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—see section 5B of that Act);
(c)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003—see section 405(1) of that Act).
(11C)The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—
(a)provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence under subsection (1) above or from the prohibition in subsection (4) above; and
(b)provide for it to be a defence in proceedings for such an offence, or for an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, to show the matters specified or described in the regulations.
(11D)For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (5), (8), (9) or (11A) above if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(11E)A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”
(4)The defence in section 141(11A) is not available in relation to so much of any charge as relates to conduct taking place before the commencement of this paragraph.
Sale etc. of crossbows 13(1)In the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/794 (NI 5), in the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), for “seventeen”, in each place it occurs, substitute “eighteen”. (2)The provisions are— (a)Article 3 (sale and letting on hire); (b)Article 4 (purchase and hiring);
13(1)In the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/794 (NI 5), in the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), for “seventeen”, in each place it occurs, substitute “eighteen”.
(2)The provisions are—
(a)Article 3 (sale and letting on hire);
(c)Article 5 (possession).
Supplemental 14(1)In this Schedule— “the Firearms Order” means the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SI 2004/ 702 (NI 3)); “enactment” includes a provision contained in Northern Ireland legislation.
14(1)In this Schedule—
“the Firearms Order” means the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SI 2004/ 702 (NI 3));
(2)Expressions used in this Schedule and in the Firearms Order have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Order.
(3)The following provisions of the Firearms Order apply as if paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 to 8 of this Schedule were contained in that Order—
(a)Article 52 (power of search with warrant);
(b)Article 69(4) (limitation period for prosecutions);
(c)Article 72 (forfeiture and disposal of firearms and ammunition);
(d)Article 81 (savings).
(4)Paragraph 4 binds persons in the service of the Crown; and Article 77(3) of the Firearms Order (certain persons deemed to be in armed forces) applies for the purposes of—
(a)this paragraph
(b)paragraph 4,
(c)any rule of law under which any of the provisions of paragraph 1, 2, 5 or 8 do not bind the Crown,
as it applies for the purposes of Article 77.
(5)In Article 72 of the Firearms Order, after paragraph (7) insert—
“(8)In this Article references to ammunition include references to an ammunition loading press (within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Schedule (Weapons, etc.: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2005).”.—[Hazel Blears.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Humfrey Malins: I cannot let this moment go by, Mr. Benton, without thanking you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Forth, on behalf of all of us for the extremely courteous and efficient way in which you have chaired proceedings. Our thanks to a number of others, too; we thank Mr. Farrar—he has been an outstanding Clerk and has assisted all of us when we have had cause to ask his advice—the Doorkeepers, the Hansard Reporters and the police for their work.
I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for her contributions on behalf of her party. I warmly thank my hon. Friends for their support and contributions; my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth and for Hertsmere have contributed in different ways. In particular, I must thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, because I may have a career ahead of me, and it is dependent on his reaction to what I say. I have a special word for my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who has taken so much of the burden on his shoulders, in relation to the clauses on firearms.
Finally, I thank the Minister and her colleagues. She has approached the whole Committee with courtesy and kindness, and it has not been a bad-tempered Committee. She is excellent, to the extent that she is entirely capable of sounding convincing even when her argument has no merit. We have had a series of good debates and look forward to getting back to them on Report.

Hazel Blears: I join the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Benton, in thanking you and Mr. Forth for your excellent chairing of the Committee. I hope that we have broadly kept in order. We have made excellent progress. I apologise to Members for the fact that we have had to sit a little late this evening, but I am delighted that we do not have to sit on Thursday morning. I am also very pleased that we have managed to scrutinise all the Bill’s provisions. I said at the outset that I wanted to make sure that the Committee had the opportunity to do that.
I thank the Clerk, all the officials, the Doorkeeper and, particularly, my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who has kept me in order. He has just told me that in our last debate the hon. Member for Hertsmere was “illuminating”. Perhaps that chink of light is illuminating; I do not know.
I thank my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, particularly the new Members, for whom this is their first Committee. Sitting on a Committee such as this one, which has been broadly good-tempered, is excellent experience for new Members. It has certainly been an excellent experience for me; I have learned more about firearms than I ever thought I would know, and I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon for taking through the clauses on that subject.
My thanks to my Whip. I do not know whether I have a career in front of me, but I certainly have one behind me; perhaps I will be reverting to it. I thank the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green for her contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who is unfortunately not in his place. I have learned so much about crofting, the Atholl Highlanders and the western isles that I am sorely tempted to spend my next summer holiday there. Who knows, I might get invited to his castle.
My particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Brent, South who really brought a degree of focus and realism to some of the problems that we have tried to deal with during Committee. I am grateful for everybody’s co-operation, and no doubt we will return to a whole series of issues on Report.

Lynne Featherstone: I, too, extend my thanks, Mr. Benton, to you and to Mr. Forth for your excellent chairing. This has been an instructive experience. It seems a very long time since we discussed drinking banning orders some days ago.
I thank all the officials, the Doorkeepers, Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—who is not in his place—the hon. Member for Woking, his colleagues and the Minister. It has been an instructive, informative and good-tempered Committee, and I, too, now know far more about weapons than I ever wanted to.

Eric Forth: May I, on behalf of Mr. Forth and myself, extend thanks to the Minister, Opposition spokespeople, and all Members of the Committee for the great courtesy that has been extended to us during this debate. It has been a very interesting Committee, and there were lots of new things to be discovered. I wish the Bill Godspeed and every success.
I would like to place on record our appreciation for, and thanks to, the learned Clerks and all the other people who have helped the Committee to run so smoothly. I am glad to see that we finished by ten past nine.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose at ten minutes past Nine o’clock.